Steve Dodd wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 01:04:47PM +0100, Adam Sampson wrote:
>
> > Also, what's the official stance on what headers should be in
> > /usr/include/linux? The glibc 2.1.3 documentation says that
> > /usr/include/linux and usr/include/asm should be symlinks into the source
> > tree, but this hasn't been true for a long time now. Where should we get
> > the "new" headers from?
>
> $ dpkg -S /usr/include/linux
> libc6-dev: /usr/include/linux
>
> IOW, your libc headers package should include the kernel headers it was
> built against, I think.
Are we trying to have a strict demarcation between Linux kernel headers,
and glibc headers? So that /usr/included/linux should come from glibc?
My /usr/include/asm and /usr/include/linux have been links into the
source tree for the last 5 years. Whenever someone complains about
missing headers, the de facto answer is "Do you have these symlinks?".
Look it up in the archives of almost any linux help list or newsgroup.
The simple fact of the matter is that for most people, the current
source tree contains the directories to which the links in /usr/include
point. The leaders of Linux kernel development may think they know
better, but according to common convention, and to glibc documentation,
/usr/include/linux, /usr/include/asm, etc., point to the current source
tree.
If this is an incorrect practice, the leaders of the Linux kernel
development need to get with the leaders of the glibc development, and
ensure that the proper linux headers are include with linux versions of
glibc, and they need to publicize this to all the Linux distributions,
Linux magazines and Websites, and blare it out in Linux newsgroups, and
they need to do it most emphatically. And then the appropriate headers
should be packaged separately.
Whether it's right or wrong, or the intended practice or not, everyone I
know links those include directories to the kernel source tree. This is
the first time I've ever heard that they aren't supposed to be, and I
read quite extensively as much as I can.
This is perhaps a little extreme response from my usually placid self,
but there needs to be some clear guidelines on this, and some agreement
on it by the glibc and kernel powers that be. For myself, I've never
had a problem with using the source tree for compiling stuff requiring
Linux headers. The original poster said that "this hasn't been true for
some time now"; however, the glibc documentation is quite up-to-date,
which is why I wondered why "this hasn't been true for some time now".
This probably isn't a real critical issue, and I hope I've not offended
anyone--this is just my perspective on the matter at hand.
ciao,
-- Matthew Vanecek Visit my Website at http://mysite.directlink.net/linuxguy For answers type: perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' ***************************************************************** For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow except me. I'm always getting in the way of something...- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 21:00:07 EST