Re: /usr/include/linux and /usr/include/asm?
Jonathan Guthrie wrote:
*SNIP*
> However, I expect I'm the only one who thinks that's the proper
> approach so, how's this for a solution: Give the /usr/include/asm and
> /usr/include/linux directories up as lost causes. Instead, define new
> directories. Say /usr/include/kernel-asm and /usr/include/kernel-linux.
> Make THEM symlinks to the appropriate directories in the kernel source
> tree. I would do this on my own computer, but I don't really get any
> benefit from it unless everyone else, particularly those who develop
> modules and whatnot, decides to use the same convention.
>
> Therefore, we then attempt to convince people to actually use those
> directories instead of /usr/include/asm and /usr/include/linux for the
> good reasons that we've discussed.
If you havn't read the letter by Linux Torvalds that was referred to under
this thread within the last few days, I suggest that you do so. In a quick
summary: Yes, /usr/include/linux;/usr/include/asm should include kernel-
independant information for a variety of reasons that he spells out.
Eventually, the other distributions should do the same thing, as it is a
glibc thing. Debian was just the first to jump on the bandwagon. Programs
that need to be kernel specific should find the kernel headers elsewhere.
The obvious choice seems to be /usr/src/linux/include/linux and
/usr/src/linux/include/asm as that is where most people store their
kernel source. Why clutter up /usr/include more with kernel-specific
headers? The entire point is that the /usr/include/* headers should be
kernel-independant after all.
--Evan
Reply to: