On Sun, 2003-06-01 at 10:36, ismail (cartman) donmez wrote:
> On Sunday 01 June 2003 02:37, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> > Oh, I saw that discussion. I fully agree. If I can help the process of
> > creating a sanitized userspace set of kernel headers I'll be happy to.
Well, Redhat do have "sanitized kernel headers", but according to the
whole thread about glibc being broken, it is not the preferred solution.
The solution is to have a set of API headers that userspace can use,
and that the kernel headers in turn include.
Problem now (as usual), is that even though I and a few others did
offer to help or organise help if one kernel hacker is willing to take
the lead, nobody responded, so I guess we will not see this any time
> > In the meantime, a small change to a kernel header, that provides _zero_
> > functional difference to the kernel itself (it's only there for source
> > code checkers, as best I can tell) shouldn't break existing userspace
> > libraries.
> Fully ACK.
Same here, as the "solution" will not be seen any time soon :/
-- Martin Schlemmer
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 22:00:15 EST