On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 16:37:04 +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 09:47:17AM +0800, csj wrote: > > Maybe it's time to file a serious bug report against > > linux-kernel-headers. IMHO there should at least be two header > > packages, one for 2.4 and another for 2.6. One could be > > installed by default, but if that breaks your system you could > > install the alternate. > > No, this is WRONG, and it WILL NOT WORK. You can't swap in > another set of stuff under /usr/include/{linux,asm} that > disagrees with what glibc was compiled with. That hierarchy is > chiefly for glibc's internal use; applications were never > supposed to use it directly.
I get your point. But can't we treat 2.6 the way we treat The Hurd ;-)? > Applications that need kernel headers should make and use > sanitized private copies of the relevant interfaces in kernel > headers. They should never care about what happens to be in > /usr/include/{linux,asm}. OK. A newbieish compile question: how do I point a program to use, say, /usr/local/include/{linux,asm}? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]