Re: linux-kernel-headers foul-up
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:48:59AM +0800, csj wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 16:37:04 +0000,
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 09:47:17AM +0800, csj wrote:
> > > Maybe it's time to file a serious bug report against
> > > linux-kernel-headers. IMHO there should at least be two header
> > > packages, one for 2.4 and another for 2.6. One could be
> > > installed by default, but if that breaks your system you could
> > > install the alternate.
> >
> > No, this is WRONG, and it WILL NOT WORK. You can't swap in
> > another set of stuff under /usr/include/{linux,asm} that
> > disagrees with what glibc was compiled with. That hierarchy is
> > chiefly for glibc's internal use; applications were never
> > supposed to use it directly.
>
> I get your point. But can't we treat 2.6 the way we treat The
> Hurd ;-)?
Smiley noted, but not really an option; given the length of release
cycles for the moment, we have to be foresighted.
> > Applications that need kernel headers should make and use
> > sanitized private copies of the relevant interfaces in kernel
> > headers. They should never care about what happens to be in
> > /usr/include/{linux,asm}.
>
> OK. A newbieish compile question: how do I point a program to
> use, say, /usr/local/include/{linux,asm}?
Use gcc's -I flag.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: