On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:48:59AM +0800, csj wrote: > 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 ;-)?
Smiley noted, but not really an option; given the length of release cycles for the moment, we have to be foresighted. > > 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}? Use gcc's -I flag. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]