Re: [patch] ppp-2.2f/2.3.x, glibc 2, and Linux 2.x
Buddha Buck (bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu)
Wed, 30 Jul 1997 14:17:00 -0400
> Richard Henderson <rth@cygnus.com> said:
> > Straw men all. At issue is
> >
> > (1) The desire to provide surgically clean namespaces for
> > ISO C, POSIX, and XPG4.
>
> OK, but that's mostly for _application_ programs. Stuff like modutils et al
> have no chance at all to work elsewhere, so portability is moot.
>
> > (2) We don't want to worry about what kernel's headers are
> > installed so that things work properly.
>
> OK.
>
> > (3) Linus doesn't want to be prevented from some particular
> > cleanup because of what it might do to libc.
>
> Very true.
>
> > (4) The desire to present a constant binary interface in the
> > face of a number of planned kernel changes.
>
> To whom? kernel-dependent stuff like modutils, ifconfig, &c just can't be
> done fully that way.
>
> There is the kernel itself, programs closely tied to the kernel (such as
> modutils) that _have_ to get a peek under the hood to have any chance of
> surviving when stuff in the kernel changes, and regular application
> programs. For the last category I fully agree.
>
> > We've been over and over this issue. Userland programs not
> > using kernel headers is the only sensible solution. This is
> > not just some bogus rule of thumb I came up with on the spur
> > of the moment.
>
> There is userland, kernel sea and systems shore ;-)
So how about this:
Userland: Don't use kernel headers. Stick to the headers that glibc
provides.
Kernel sea: Already has its own headers. Doesn't need glibc headers
Systems shore: Explicitly include a -I/path_to_kernel_source/include in
the Makefiles, so it gets the kernel headers it needs -- without
requiring the glibc headers to match the kernel.
> --
> Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl
> Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
> Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
> Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
>
--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice