Re: linux-kernel-headers foul-up
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 16:37:04 +0000,
Colin Watson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 09:47:17AM +0800, csj wrote:
> > Maybe it's time to file a serious bug report against
> > linux-kernel-headers. IMHO there should at least be two header
> > packages, one for 2.4 and another for 2.6. One could be
> > installed by default, but if that breaks your system you could
> > install the alternate.
>
> No, this is WRONG, and it WILL NOT WORK. You can't swap in
> another set of stuff under /usr/include/{linux,asm} that
> disagrees with what glibc was compiled with. That hierarchy is
> chiefly for glibc's internal use; applications were never
> supposed to use it directly.
I get your point. But can't we treat 2.6 the way we treat The
Hurd ;-)?
> Applications that need kernel headers should make and use
> sanitized private copies of the relevant interfaces in kernel
> headers. They should never care about what happens to be in
> /usr/include/{linux,asm}.
OK. A newbieish compile question: how do I point a program to
use, say, /usr/local/include/{linux,asm}?
Reply to: