Re: Is this a bug with glibc (ntohl, ntohs, ...)?

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Is this a bug with glibc (ntohl, ntohs, ...)?
From: Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 09:47:37 -0500
Message-id: <[🔎] 87vgov46bn.fsf@wesley.springies.nom>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20010327163914.A27096@cistron.nl>
References: <[🔎] 3AB510BD.B425EEE2@cs.bilkent.edu.tr> <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.30.0103181402350.29460-100000@tennyson.netexpress.net> <[🔎] 20010327163914.A27096@cistron.nl>

Joost Witteveen <joostje@cistron.nl> writes:

> I find it somewhat strange that nobody noticed how wrong yuo are.

That's because Steve's not wrong.

> So, the files in /usr/include/linux are actually glibc-provided files, not
> Linux files.

They're the files from the version of the kernel that glibc was
compiled against.  They're not glibc files.  See kernel traffic from a
couple months ago to see why.

(For confirmation, read that file, or /usr/include/linux/version.h.)

-- 
Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> - In a variety of flavors!
Beware of computerized fortune-tellers!

Reply to:

References:
- Is this a bug with glibc (ntohl, ntohs, ...)?
  - From: Eray Ozkural <erayo@cs.bilkent.edu.tr>
- Re: Is this a bug with glibc (ntohl, ntohs, ...)?
  - From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@netexpress.net>
- Re: Is this a bug with glibc (ntohl, ntohs, ...)?
  - From: Joost Witteveen <joostje@cistron.nl>

Prev by Date: Re: Is this a bug with glibc (ntohl, ntohs, ...)?
Next by Date: Re: Maintainership.
Previous by thread: Re: Is this a bug with glibc (ntohl, ntohs, ...)?
Next by thread: Re: Is this a bug with glibc (ntohl, ntohs, ...)?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread