Re: Bug#2697: symlink /usr/include/asm in libc5-dev
David Engel wrote:
> > I guess the pro is that everybody's development environment
> > (wrt.headers, at least) is locked in, and one may be able to
> > predict/reproduce compilations since all header files are the same.
>
> Exactly. This issue comes up on the linux-gcc list every so often.
> As usual, there was no resolution when it came up a couple of weeks
> ago, but there was considerably more support for doing it this time
> around. So much so that H.J. Lu said he would probably do it when he
> gets more disk space later this year.
>
> When libc 5.2.18 was recently broken by changes in the ~1.3.62 kernel
> headers and again (albeit temporarily) in ~1.3.81, I decided to go
> ahead and include "approved" headers with libc for Debian regardless
> of what H.J. Lu does. It will remain this way as long as I'm
> maintaining libc, which I hope is still on an interim basis.
I prefer to have the links in /usr/include and I think I'm
not the only one. What do you think about splitting libc5-dev
in libc5-dev containing the normal include files (with linux
and asm as symbolic links to the kernel header files) and
a libc5-devk containing the linux and asm directories with
the header files from an "approved" version. libc5-devk could
then depend on "source|libc5-dev" and libc5 should recommend
"libc5-devk (>=vers.)|source".
Using two libc5-dev* packages has two advantages. It makes
people happy that prefer to have links in /usr/include and
it would make it much easier for you to upgrade the kernel
header files (no need to update libc5-dev!).
What do you think about it?
Thanks,
Peter
--
Peter Tobias EMail:
Fachhochschule Ostfriesland tobias@et-inf.fho-emden.de
Fachbereich Elektrotechnik und Informatik tobias@debian.org
Constantiaplatz 4, 26723 Emden, Germany
Reply to: