On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, David Riley wrote:
>
> > Alexander Viro wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, I suspect that quite a few of us had done that since long -
> > > IIRC I've got burned on 1.2/1.3 and decided that I had enough. Bugger if I
> > > remember what exactly it was - ISTR that it was restore(8) built with
> > > 1.3.<something> headers and playing funny games on 1.2, but it might be
> > > something else...
> >
> > So then what's the correct header tree to put in /usr/include/linux? I
> > could use the stock 2.2.14-patched headers that came with the dist, but
> > how often does it need to be updated? Or should I use the latest 2.2?
>
> Whatever your libc was built against. It shouldn't matter that much,
> but when shit hits the fan... you really don't want to be there.
>
> Look at it that way: you don't want to build some object files with one
> set of headers, some - with another and link them together. Now,
> s/some object files/libc/. With a minimal luck you will be OK, but
> it's easier not to ask for trouble in the first place.
Yep. At one point, about six months ago, I recompiled glibc 2.0.7(?)
against 2.2.15(?) with USB backport due to occational USB v4l
device-related bus locks, recompiled the v4l app I was using (w3cam
package I think) and the problems mostly went away. As far as I understand
it's a matter of a kernel/userland seperation. But again, sometimes you
just have to update your libc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 15 2000 - 21:00:31 EST