Andrew Benton wrote: > That doesn't sound too dangerous to me. Except that the kernel headers use different names (and possibly different types, although the types have to be the same size) from what userspace needs to use.
For instance, see: http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse_frm/thread/68d34c0d6c10d414/c6f44e82a0b5731a?tvc=1 The IPv6 multicast request structure inside the kernel is different from what RFC2553 says programs should use. But it doesn't matter (so it won't get fixed, because it's not a bug), because the various elements of the structure are the same size. Just the names are wrong. And as Linus says in there: "There aren't that many things that are actually useful in the kernel headers anyway. Most of them (like the IPv6 stuff) are really specified in other places in the first place." For IPv6, the person who started that thread should have taken the RFC and made a structure declaration from it, not used the (internal) kernel interface(s) directly. > If it is wrong to use the kernel headers why don't the kernel > developers include fixed headers in with the kernel source? Because the linux-libc-headers project already exists. (Now, this wasn't a valid answer until recently, but until 2.5.something, glibc *could* use raw kernel headers without too many issues.)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
