Re: linux-kernel-headers foul-up
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 06:30:47AM +0800, csj wrote:
> At Mon, 03 Nov 2003 22:12:07 +0100,
> wsa wrote:
> > And last question, if this new splitting stuff causes breakage
> > who will solve this? is this a debian issue, a linux issue or
> > should the sources of for example mplayer be changed?
>
> Actually I can see the benefits of splitting. For me the problem
> was that the glibc team decided to use the broken (tm) 2.6
> kernel.
To support NPTL - which is going to be increasingly important for users
over the duration of the next release cycle - there was no other
alternative. The problem is that people included kernel headers from
userspace, despite being told in lots of documentation not to do this.
See debian-glibc over the last couple of months for lots of discussion
about this.
> Fixing the problem should be as easy as rebuilding the
> linux-kernel-headers source by sticking in your own
> kernel-headers (from your custom make-kpkg kernel) into ./include
> and perhaps deleting the ./debian/patches directory.
I really hope you know what you're doing in great detail. I would not
remotely recommend this approach to anyone who isn't a seasoned glibc
hacker.
> My proposed reportbug fix is to have linux-kernel-headers as a
> virtual "provides" package. Then we could have separate 2.2, 2.4
> and 2.6 headers packages, the same way we already have separate
> kernel packages for 2.2, 2.4 and the broken 2.6 kernel.
This won't work. The headers in /usr/include/linux and /usr/include/asm
must match those against which glibc was compiled. You have to pick one;
you can't swap them in and out freely.
Again, the 2.6 headers are not broken. They're just different.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: