Re: build depends on kernel-headers

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>]

>>>>> "Herbert" == Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> writes:

    Herbert> Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu> wrote:
    >> This brings up an interesting point.  While we should work with
    >> upstream maintainers to fix these problems, we should also try
    >> to avoid making these programs harder to build on Debian than
    >> other distributions.  If other distributions are still making
    >> headers available in such a way that existing software builds,
    >> and we do not, then we make lives harder for both our users and
    >> maintainers.  Yes, it may be more correct, but we need to be
    >> carefule not to correct our users into frustration.  Managing
    >> careful transition plans is also an important part of
    >> correctness.

    Herbert> This is not something that we're doing.  This is a
    Herbert> decision taken by the upstream kernel maintainer(s). 

First, it wouldn't be the first time that we had to jump through extra
hoops to make upgrading easy simply because an upstream didn't do
their job right.  However, I don't think there's anything we can
really do in that part of the problem space.


We are making active decisions related to this problem.  Ben is
actively removing headers not used by libc6-dev; there may be other
things happening as well related to these issues.  If this has the net
effect that I as an end user find I can't build significant sets of
software on Debian without significant effort, but I can build the
same software on a distribution that isn't as agressive at being
correct with its libc, then we have not served our user community.  We
do need to encourage people to transition, but we do not want to do so
in a manner that causes people to get the impression that Debian is
less functional for their needs.