[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Lobby this, somebody

In article <87iur221nh.fsf@tiamat.datasync.com>,
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> wrote:

[why don't we put kernel headers in /usr/include directly]

>	The kernel headers that libc6-dev depends on is just a garden
> variety kernel-header package. It is has a pedigree of being produced
> by a maintained, continually tested, packaging package (no bugs
> spevific to a special headers package are thus introduced).
>	There is less work to be done, since nothing special has to be
> done about the headers package.
>	I'm not about to special case a version of the kernel headers
> just for libc. The results do not justify the effort. 

Excuse me for stepping in in the middle of the thread, but it seems to
me the common case that someone has libc6-dev and only one set of
kernel headers installed. The number of people that need 7 versions
of the kernel headers for module development seems to be negligible.

So why not clear up the confusion and create a libc6-kernel-headers package
that unpacks in /usr/include ? Maybe even as an extra alternative to
the existing kernel header packages (but it should get selected by
default then instead of plain kernel-headers).

 Miquel van Smoorenburg |  The dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac lay in his bed
    miquels@cistron.nl  |  awake all night wondering if there is a doG

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: