Re: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH] scsi.h uses "u8" which isn't defined.

[Jeff Garzik]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 08:32:24AM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Monday 18 August 2003 15:04, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> > >    But generally idea is good: keep interface separately from
> > > implementation.
> >
> > No, the idea is to physically separate the headers.
> >
> > include/{linux,asm} is currently copied to userspace, hacked a bit,
> > and then shipped as the "glibc-kernheaders" package.
> 
> Or used directly by uclibc (and linux from scratch) to build the library 
> against.

Yes, this is incorrect.

Kernel developers have been telling people for years, "do not directly
include kernel headers."


> > I would rather that the kernel developers directly maintained this
> > interface, by updating headers in include/abi, rather than ad-hoc by
> > distro people.
> >
> > 	Jeff
> 
> Okay, I'd like to ask about the headers thing:
> 
> I've got a project using uclibc, and build it myself, currently against the 
> 2.4 headers.  What's the plan for 2.6?  Everything I've seen on the subject 
> is "using kernel headers directly from userspace is evil, even to build your 
> libc against, but we currently offer no alternative, so go bug your libc 
> maintainer and have THEM do it..."

Well, do you expect kernel developers to fix up every libc out there?
That's what libc maintainers exist for.  Distro guys did glibc,
(glibc-kernheaders) that covers the majority.

In any case, _this thread_ is an attempt to answer your question,
"what's the plan?"  For 2.6, I don't need include/abi happening.  Way
too late for that.  For 2.7, IMO we need it...

	Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/