On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 12:06:36AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > 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. What packages? > > 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. Well, it's hard to suggest a less strict fix without knowing what needs fixing. :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]