Re: kernel headers---FAQ
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I have missed this discussion from the beginning...
> >
> > David Engel says libc6-dev depends on kernel-headers because this way
> > there is not a huge diff file against the .orig source.
> >
> > Is that the *only* reason?
>
> While the answer is yes, the statement is not complete. The reason
> libc6-dev depends on a specific kernel-headers package rather than include
> them, stems from the fact that the kernel-headers are architecture
> specific. Thus a different set of include files for each architecture
> would make the diff files exceptionally large. Depending on the "proper"
> kernel-headers version allows these needs to be satisfied on each
> architecture (with that architectures specific kernel-headers package) in
> the correct fashion.
So the solution is to move the diffs to another package (for example, the
kernel package?).
We could make libc6-dev build (debian/rules) to require "the kernel
package having all the Debian patches" to be already uncompressed in
another directory (using one of the new headers proposed by Ian Jackson in
debian-policy some time ago).
libc6-dev is already Architecture: any, not all. If we implement the new
header for package building, there is no need to split the package in two.
> David also pointed out to me that if I include the headers at build time,
> from those installed on my machine, then someone else who re-compiles
> libc6 on their own machine may or may not have those headers installed and
> the results may not be useful. At best there is the likelyhood that
> programs compiled against this "private" libc6 will not work like those
> same sources compiled against the "distribution" libc6.
Yes, but libc6-dev would not have to be built from the headers installed
on your machine (this would be a really bad idea), but from the headers
inside our known Debian source kernel package, which has all the patches
already applied.
Sorry, but I still do not understand why splitting an important package in
two is a better technical solution than implementing a new Source header
for control files.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNMjovyqK7IlOjMLFAQFEfAP/Ua1IFsziqXCHaFgcXgXl464/XV2hfKpq
7Dct/WvPqJjATtWE4mj/mJ6lfSI6uQ61KGY3GDfJApzaw3gqsr4BtZFN1cJg+8RH
k/p81qbWP3b2MyqGEQJoESk+hWERI98jcziujJ4gSv3YIa490m2oK5YmKOsT+vUO
yuoWUJpUH5o=
=958h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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: