Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:26:51 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH] scsi.h uses "u8" which isn't defined. |
| |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |