Re: Debian conflicts with FHS on /usr/include/{linux,asm}

[Ben Gertzfield <che@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian Servis <servis@purdue.edu> writes:

    Brian> Just curious how Debian is going to stand on the FHS
    Brian> requirements for /usr/include kernel headers in section
    Brian> 6.1.5 of the FHS?  Is the practice of including known good
    Brian> headers with libc6-dev going to continue?  If so then the
    Brian> exception should be noted in the new policy manual.

I would be extremely happy if Debian decided to drop the new way and
just join the rest of the distributions with the (admittedly not the
best way) symlinks. Yes, I've read the rationale for doing it our way,
but it breaks *so much software*. Debian is really the odd man out
here; there is tons of software out there that depends on those
symlinks being there that violating FHS just to prove a point gets us
nothing but incompatibility.

Just for examples, I cite VMWare and OSS as two packages that fail
miserably on a Debian system because it's so different.

As it stands, I *always* have to remove /usr/include/{linux,asm}
on all of my Linux boxes and replace them with symlinks by hand,
as I do a lot of kernel development.

If we also went back to the old days of the kernel-source packages
unpacking into /usr/src/linux/, I would be pretty darned happy.

    Brian> Quoting http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.0/fhs-6.1.5.html,

    Brian> 6.1.5 /usr/include : Header files included by C programs

    Brian> These symbolic links are required if a C or C++ compiler is
    Brian> installed.

    Brian>     /usr/include/asm -> /usr/src/linux/include/asm-<arch>
    Brian> /usr/include/linux -> /usr/src/linux/include/linux

Sounds fine by me.

-- 
Brought to you by the letters B and J and the number 7.
"Johnny! Don't go! It's too dangerous!" "I don't care!"
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer of Gimp and GTK+ -- http://www.debian.org/