Re: Debian conflicts with FHS on /usr/include/{linux,asm}
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Brian Servis wrote:
> *- On 9 Jul, Philip Hands wrote about "Re: Debian conflicts with FHS on /usr/include/{linux,asm} "
> >> > Finding that you cannot rebuild a package, that built perfectly
> >> > yesterday, simply because you decided to have a look at the latest
> >> > kernel source, is very depressing.
> >>
> >> Any Joe User will expect the correct headers to be in place. Any user
> >> that is building unstable kernels will know better than to place the
> >> headers where they might cause problems.
> >
> > So are you suggesting that kernel_image packages should contain the headers
> > with which the kernel was built ? So that if you installed a new kernel
> > package, you could guarantee that the headers would match ?
> >
> >>From past experience, I'd say that this was a bad idea, because it can make
> > one's development environment unstable.
> >
> > Anyone who is building software that really is kernel version dependent, is
> > actually helped IMO by the fact that while they're building it, the
> > -I/usr/src/linux/include that appears on each compilation acts as a mnemonic
> > for ``This is kernel version dependent software''. This also makes the same
> > fact clear to anyone who is wondering why they cannot build the same binaries
> > on a different system.
> >
> > People who are building software that isn't very kernel version sensitive can
> > really do without destroying their development environment, just because
> > they've installed a new kernel.
> >
>
> Yes, the headers under /usr/include should match the current kernel
> version installed(using package managment of course). With the increase
> in software that may need kernel headers, Debian needs to be able to
> support the few of them that do require kernel headers in the location
> *set by the standards*(the location may be hardcoded or beyond the scope
> of a Joe User to change). If an advanced user is developing or
> installing software on an unstable kernel and needs stable headers they
> will know how to include the appropriate -I to point to a stable kernel
> tree.
>
> Having an -I/path/to/a/stable/linux/include is IMHO a better mnemonic
> for ``This is kernel version dependent software''.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I understand Debian's decision to have a stable
> /usr/include. However, I think the idea is being out grown by need
> the average user to install software that needs the kernel headers from
> the current kernel.
/usr/doc/libc6/FAQ.Debian.gz
Why does someone feel the need to re-argue this every release? The 2.2.x
README doesn't even include instructions on doing the symlinks anymore.
--
Scott K. Ellis <storm@gate.net> http://www.gate.net/~storm/
Reply to: