Ken Moffat wrote:
After fighting with the headers script (to add something for the
latest release of smartmontools, and really it's only 'fighting' in
the sense of 'this file is formatted for a terminal HOW wide?'), I
think perhaps I should at least ask - why are we still doing this ?
Ken,
Sorry have my a 19' wide screen monitor, so it looks normal to me.
The reason I continue to use the script is because of the fact the
kernels script is flawed and breaks with older programs and some new
ones. We have others dependent on this script now to, who have also
realized the kernel headers, just break things and they don't want to
hear about it. They keep on saying it's not broke it's your program, you
fix it. When it gets to point where the kernel headers are useable, we
will switch but at least right now, we know what we have works.
How many columns should we go on the script, I will change it.
Most software, at least for common platforms, should either compile
with the kernel's own sanitised headers, or should have patches
available. [ BTW, don't believe people who tell you that fedora is
bleeding edge - they seem to be very slow in picking up new
versions, at least for the packages which have caused me to look. ]
I think that MIPS is the big problem ? But then, MIPS and
kernel.org sometimes seem to only have a vague connection, certainly
I've seen a lot of references to MIPS things that seem to wait forever
before being getting to the kernel.org version of the kernel. If this
is why we are continuing to maintain our own headers, are there
alternatives, for example patching the kernel itself ?
MIPS is getting better, but they have a long way to go.
ĸen
_______________________________________________
Clfs-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cross-lfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clfs-dev
