[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > > Why does libc6 depend on kernel-header ?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's libc6-dev that has that dependency.
> > > > > Perhaps weakening the dependency to Suggests might be the best
> > > > > solution.
> > > >
> > > > No, you can't. Their are multiple header files that will be flat
> > > > *broken* without a /usr/include/{linux,asm}.
> > >
> > > I know, however it would allow people to much more easily install and
> > > maintain their own kernel sources for these includes.
> >
> > Which is why we shouldn't do that. Remember, we *DO NOT* want them to
> > include their own kernel sources for these includes, because it is a *VERY
> > BAD IDEA*.
>
> Rubbish, it's essential for almost all architectures except i386 and alpha,
> that are not yet integrated with the main kernel source.
Complete and utter bullshit.
The "we really need specific headers" thing is true for _all_
architectures; the reasons are completely independant of architecture.
Where to get those specific headers - that is, which patches to apply -
might differ between architectures, but the principle is the same:
/usr/doc/libc6-dev/FAQ.Debian.gz (this one is from the previous version):
-----
Q1: Why does Debian provide kernel headers with the libc6-dev package
instead of using the standard Linux convention of having symlinks to
the currently installed kernel?
A1: Manoj Srivastava explains why (this was originally for libc5, but
is still valid for libc6):
> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The headers were included in libc5-dev after a rash of very
> buggy alpha kernel releases (1.3.7* or something like that) that
> proceeded to break compilations, etc. Kernel versions are changed
> far more rapidly than libc is, and there are higer chances that
> people install a custom kernel than they install custom libc.
>
> Add to that the fact that few programs really need the more
> volatile elements of the header files (that is, things that really
> change from kernel version to kernel version), [before you reject
> this, consider: programs compiled on one kernel version usually work
> on other kernels].
>
> So, it makes sense that a set of headers be provided from a
> known good kernel version, and that is sufficient for compiling most
> programs, (it also makes the compile time environments for programs
> on debian machines a well known one, easing the process of dealing
> with problem reports), the few programs that really depend on cutting
> edge kernel data structures may just use -I/usr/src/linux/include
> (provided that kernel-headers or kernel-source exists on the system).
>
> libc5-deb is uploaded frequently enough that it never lags too
> far behind the latest released kernel.
>
> I hope I was clear enough to answer your question.
>
> manoj
-----
There's also a message from Linus somewhere which explicitely agrees with
that point of view.
MfG Kai
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
