On Tuesday 21 July 2009 13:07:54 Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > >>Yes. I want to do that. I set up KERNEL_HEADERS so that uclibc > >>build machinery should know where it is. The proof is that > >>"make" succeeds. > >> > >>So uclibc does not require kernel headers to be installed > >>into any particular directory, it is working with > >>kernel headers installed in any directory, as long as it is > >>specified by KERNEL_HEADERS. > >> > >>Yet, "make check" does not work. It's a bug. > > > > The proper thing to do here is to setup your toolchain to include > > that extra include-dir: > > For properly setup sysroot-enabled toolchains the kernel-headers > > are already installed in the sysroot. Likewise toolchains configured > > not to use sysroot (you shouldn't do this anyway nowadays) have to > > specify that directory as include-dir in their c(pp) flags. > > > >>Feel free to fix the bug in any way you feel comfortable with. > > > > In my POV this is a configuration issue and not libc's business. > > Then why do we have KERNEL_HEADERS?
needing to build against kernel headers is unrelated to the hack of having uClibc install the kernel headers for you. the only thing uClibc needs to build is the compiler and the kernel headers. the two need not be in the same place. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
