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

Re: More about this bug



At Mon, 03 Nov 2003 10:27:26 -0500,
Andr�Rold�wrote:
> > I discussed with Daniel, and he suggested to use kernel-headers-2.4
> > package, or copy header constants to the file.  The latter can be
> > easily fixed for this case.
> 
> I think that putting those constants into the file is not the best 
> solution. See below.
> 
> > Back to the idea to use kernel-headers-2.4 package.
> > linux-kernel-headers package is now 2.6 based, and it governs under
> > /usr/include/{asm,linux,asm-generic}.  This is not changed.  So lilo
> > can be fixed using kernel-headers-2.4 package.
> >
> > However the problem is for example kernel-headers-2.4.21-4 package has
> > "/usr/src/kernel-headers-2.4.21-4" dir.  This means that lilo package
> > can't use kernel-headers-2.4 package easily, and lilo package links to
> > this kenrel-header package strongly.  kernel-headers package is
> > modified sometimes frequently, so many packages link to different
> > kernel-headers package.  The one idea is that kernel-headers-2.4.*
> > packages provide /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.4 symbolic links.  We need
> > to think about the case: multiple dirs are existed (like 2.4.21-4,
> > 2.4.22-1, ...), though.  But this idea leaves some
> > linux-kernel-headers roles, and I don't think using kernel-headers is
> > always good.
> 
> I've already sent an e-mail to John Coffman (LILO upstream) and asked him
> about the current status of LILO having in mind that (very) soon the 2.6
> kernel series will be the stable branch of linux.
> 
> I think that making a symbolic link from /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.4* to
> /usr/src/kernel-headers-2.4 is a good idea but this have to be debated.

I would like to know Herbert opinion.

The problem to provide linux-kernel-headers-24 (linux-kernel-headers
including 2.4 kernel) is: this is not part of glibc-built headers.  So
I think providing symlink in kernel-headers-2.4 is better.

Note that I repeatedly heard that userland applications should pull
constants from kernel headers.  If someone know the _practical_
_real_ reason, please tell me.

> In the meantime, I'll try to fix this by adding those constants to the
> needed LILO header file and I will wait for the upstream answer about this
> topic.

That's good :)

Regards,
-- gotom



Reply to: