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

Bug#43928: marked as done ([OLD PROPOSAL] libc and kernel source policy)

Your message dated Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
with message-id <20010613181654.2DB994711@speedy.private>
and subject line Bug #43928: libc and kernel source policy
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 1 Sep 1999 17:23:43 +0000
Received: (qmail 7992 invoked from network); 1 Sep 1999 17:23:38 -0000
Received: from mail.xmission.com (
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 1 Sep 1999 17:23:38 -0000
Received: from [] (helo=dillweed.dsl.xmission.com)
	by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1)
	id 11ME6g-00058F-00; Wed, 1 Sep 1999 11:23:34 -0600
Received: from andersen by dillweed.dsl.xmission.com with local (Exim 3.03 #1 (Debian))
	id 11ME1x-0000LG-00; Wed, 01 Sep 1999 11:18:41 -0600
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 11:18:41 -0600
From: Erik Andersen <andersen@xmission.com>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org, debian-policy@lists.debian.org
Subject: libc and kernel source policy
Message-ID: <19990901111841.A1258@xmission.com>
Reply-To: andersen@xmission.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0pre1i
X-Operating-System: Linux 2.2.12, Intel PII-Celeron, 487.510697 MHz
X-No-Junk-Mail: I do not want to get *any* junk mail.
Sender: Erik Andersen <andersen@dillweed.dsl.xmission.com>

Package: debian-policy

I wish to change Debian policy regarding libc and the kernel sources.
The document /usr/share/doc/libc6/FAQ.Debian.gz states:

    Occasionally, changes in the kernel headers cause problems with the
    compilation of libc and of programs that use libc. To ensure that users
    are not affected by these problems, we configure libc to use the headers
    from a kernel that is known to work with libc and the programs that
    depend on stable kernel headers.

The kernel headers don't change much these days on stable releases, yet
the Debian libc packages continue to carry with them full sets of kernel
headers (whatever somebody has _manually_ copied into place as 
/usr/include/{linux,asm,scsi,etc} on the system building glibc).

Why in the heck do we have kernel-headers packages in Debian?  Why
do we have kernel-source packages?  It seems to me that if building
libc _requires_ a particular set of kernel include files (which I
consider to be dubious) why not have glibc _depend_ on a particular 
kernel-headers-xxx package?  Why not have kernel headers provide
/usr/include/{linux,asm,scsi,etc} (or at least put in symlinks
for them pointing to /usr/src/kernel-headers-xxx)?

That would be a great service to kernel hackers, libc hackers, and
mirror maintainers (since libc would no longer have to carry around
the extra baggage of kernel headers).  


Erik B. Andersen   Web:    http://www.xmission.com/~andersen/ 
                   email:  andersee@debian.org
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
Received: (at 43928-done) by bugs.debian.org; 13 Jun 2001 18:17:00 +0000
>From steveg@molehole.dyndns.org Wed Jun 13 13:17:00 2001
Return-path: <steveg@molehole.dyndns.org>
Received: from (speedy.private) [::ffff:] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 15AFCN-0003V1-00; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:59 -0500
Received: by speedy.private (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 2DB994711; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
To: 43928-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug #43928: libc and kernel source policy
Message-Id: <20010613181654.2DB994711@speedy.private>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: steveg@molehole.dyndns.org (Steve Greenland)
Delivered-To: 43928-done@bugs.debian.org

This note is being sent as part of a project to clean out old (> 1yr)
debian-policy proposals. If you disagree with action below please
respond to bug#@bugs.debian.org, not to me, so that the discussion may
be carried out publically in debian-policy. Feel free to re-open the
bug while it's being discussed -- I'm not trying to force any
particular disposition, just taking my best shot at resolving dead

Bug #43928: libc and kernel source policy

Summary: Arguments for and against including a specific set of kernel
headers in the libc source vs. depending on a specific kernel-header
package vs. just taking whatever's installed. Concensus seemed to be
that current situation is "best" (most stable, fewest luser bug
reports) and those that actually need newer kernel headers are also
those who are most capable of understanding the right way to get them.

Discussion: I'm not sure why this is still open -- consensus was
clearly for status quo.

Action: close

Reply to: