On Sat, 24 Feb 2007, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On 2/24/07, Bryan Kadzban [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OTOH, I don't know why most of these people think it's the CLFS package
either -- are they doing a search on linux-headers and finding that
package? Or are they doing something else that's pointing them there?
I don't think any of these suggestions should be used unless they help
fix the root of the user confusion -- and I don't know what that is for
sure.
This was the same reason I couldn't come up with anything. I'm worried
that just putting the version number after Linux won't help people in
this situation. But it'll have to do until an actual confused user
suggests something different.
Well, I'm not actually confused, but I think my view on that topic might
be helpful nevertheless. In my case the unknown thing pointing to Jims
headers is my memory.
There was a time when those headers were the way to go to get sanitized
headers. Since that time there is a connection (although no strong one
any more) between the term linux-headers and the requirement to get a
package with that name. The package is actively maintained, and
accordingly my scripts that regularly harvest the web for new package
version from the original sites still get new versions of it.
I remember having thought months ago: didn't they want to use the headers
provided by the kernel build target? Why is there still a page called
linux-headers? A quick look into it ended that estonishment, the
content is more than obvious. I think naming it linux-$version-headers
would have prevented me from having to look into it, but I do not like
version numbers in places were they are not required or appropriate.
If there is the wish to rename it to avoid confusion I would vote for
somethimg more descriptive just as in other cases that do things other
than just installing a certain package. E.g. installinglinuxheaders.
Uwe
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
