On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 02:46:14PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Is there some specific reported issue that this change is intended to fix? > I haven't noticed any complaints about the current behavior.
#434040 and a hand full of packages on the buildd. > Anyway, it's my understanding that userspace apps are never supposed to > define __KERNEL__ and doing so with linux-libc-dev gives broken includes, so > in terms of overall design this change looks wrong to me (or at least, > gratuitously strict). __KERNEL__-only parts of the headers are filtered out for linux-libc-dev. > If there's userspace code that wants to get the > kernel types under the standard posix names, why break that? Please provide a less strict fix which works. Userspace code can only use this definitions within a freestanding compiler without libc. > (For an example of code that probably breaks with this change, I offer you > aboot, the alpha bootloader; it's not great code, but we have to maintain it > all the same...) Thats what I expected. Bastian -- A little suffering is good for the soul. -- Kirk, "The Corbomite Maneuver", stardate 1514.0 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]