On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 06:30:47AM +0800, csj wrote: > At Mon, 03 Nov 2003 22:12:07 +0100, > wsa wrote: > > And last question, if this new splitting stuff causes breakage > > who will solve this? is this a debian issue, a linux issue or > > should the sources of for example mplayer be changed? > > Actually I can see the benefits of splitting. For me the problem > was that the glibc team decided to use the broken (tm) 2.6 > kernel.
To support NPTL - which is going to be increasingly important for users over the duration of the next release cycle - there was no other alternative. The problem is that people included kernel headers from userspace, despite being told in lots of documentation not to do this. See debian-glibc over the last couple of months for lots of discussion about this. > Fixing the problem should be as easy as rebuilding the > linux-kernel-headers source by sticking in your own > kernel-headers (from your custom make-kpkg kernel) into ./include > and perhaps deleting the ./debian/patches directory. I really hope you know what you're doing in great detail. I would not remotely recommend this approach to anyone who isn't a seasoned glibc hacker. > My proposed reportbug fix is to have linux-kernel-headers as a > virtual "provides" package. Then we could have separate 2.2, 2.4 > and 2.6 headers packages, the same way we already have separate > kernel packages for 2.2, 2.4 and the broken 2.6 kernel. This won't work. The headers in /usr/include/linux and /usr/include/asm must match those against which glibc was compiled. You have to pick one; you can't swap them in and out freely. Again, the 2.6 headers are not broken. They're just different. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]