Re: kernel-{image,headers} package bloat
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 08:54:33AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> > That is the raison d'etre for kernel-headers. However, the new per-image
> > kernel-headers exist solely for the benefit of module builders.
>
> Then you break things for no good reason. These "module builders" you
> speak of should be using the same headers as glibc.
Hmm, I think you better refresh your theory about kernel modules.
> > Huh? There is still a kernel-headers package for the glibc maintainer to
> > use. In fact, it's exactly the same as before.
>
> And when some other library gets built with one of your other headers?
Which other library uses kernel headers? They better stop or they probably
won't compile at all with 2.4.
> This is the sole reason for the existance of kernel-headers. Your
> continued insistance that doing something else is good for someone else
> ignores these reasons and is fundamentally a broken concept.
Dale, I expected you to have a better understanding of this since you
used to maintain glibc. It is true that the plain kernel-headers exist
solely/mainly for the purpose of building glibc. However, it has nothing
to do with the new flavoured kernel-headers. These should/will not be
used to build glibc. They exist so that kernel modules with correct
checksums can be easily built.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: