DJ Lucas wrote: > Jim Gifford wrote: >> This script is >> available at http://ftp.jg555.com/headers/headers. >> >> What I ask from the more advanced members of LFS and CLFS is to give >> them a try, comment on them. Would they be useful to use as a temporary >> alternative. a viable alternative, hard to maintain, or is it a waste of >> time? > This begs a question. What the hell are the libc developers using for > userspace headers?
That depends on what libc you're talking about, I think. I don't know much of the internals of these projects, so what I write might be complete rubbish, but I'll share it anyway (-; I think, µClibc uses raw kernel headers. To quote from the µClibc configuration system: "uClibc doesn't even try to achieve binary compatibility across kernel versions." See the files <extra/Configs/Config.in.arch> and <extra/scripts/fix_includes.sh> (which, BTW, does *not* sanitize the kernel headers, it only makes sure that the kernel source tree is configured at all and that it is configured for the correct architecture.) AFAICS klibc uses raw kernel headers, too. See <klibc/README>. It seems, dietlibc uses its own private minimal subset of kernel headers. See directory <include/linux/>. libc5 and libc4 do not work with Linux 2.6, so the question of sanitized headers doesn't even exist. I have no idea about Glibc, although I guess it depends on the individual developers. Those that are RedHat employees probably use Fedora glibc-kernheaders. Those that work in the Debian project probably use Debian's own sanitized headers. Those that are members of the linux-libc-kernel-headers project (<http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/libc-headers/>) probably use those headers. And others probably use headers from PLD's linux-libc-headers project. > And why can't they share? Too specialized? jwm -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
