On Mon, 19 May 2003 18:40:18 MDT, Eric W. Biederman said:
> Or the build against a library that does that. There are not that
> many libraries.
So I get around the lack of foo-gram support in glibc by
writing/compiling/installing a -lfoo-gram, which of course gets its
header definitions from the same header file that kernheaders isn't
supplying, or by dragging around the same local foo-gram.h that I'd
otherwise be dragging around with my app.
Somehow, this doesn't seem like progress to me. And of course, it just
sets me up for *odd* debugging problems when my foo-gram.h is at version
0.17 and the kernel and glibc are up to 0.25, and features mysteriously
misbehave depending on the exact -I include order on the system I'm
doing the build on, and whether the particular version of gcc has the
automagic auto-ambush handling of /usr/local/include, and the phase of
the moon...
Yes, I know I can build against a library. Point is that saying I can
do it doesn't change the fact it's a hack and an ongoing maintenance problem.
> For a lot of system calls it is actively dangerous to assume dev_t ==
> __kernel_dev_t. As glibc does some cute things in there.
I thought that sort of fun and games was *WHY* userspace can't use the
kernel headers in the first place?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 23 2003 - 22:00:38 EST