Re: [patch] ppp-2.2f/2.3.x, glibc 2, and Linux 2.x

Buddha Buck (
Wed, 30 Jul 1997 14:17:00 -0400

> Richard Henderson <> said:
> > Straw men all. At issue is
> >
> > (1) The desire to provide surgically clean namespaces for
> > ISO C, POSIX, and XPG4.
> OK, but that's mostly for _application_ programs. Stuff like modutils et al
> have no chance at all to work elsewhere, so portability is moot.
> > (2) We don't want to worry about what kernel's headers are
> > installed so that things work properly.
> OK.
> > (3) Linus doesn't want to be prevented from some particular
> > cleanup because of what it might do to libc.
> Very true.
> > (4) The desire to present a constant binary interface in the
> > face of a number of planned kernel changes.
> To whom? kernel-dependent stuff like modutils, ifconfig, &c just can't be
> done fully that way.
> There is the kernel itself, programs closely tied to the kernel (such as
> modutils) that _have_ to get a peek under the hood to have any chance of
> surviving when stuff in the kernel changes, and regular application
> programs. For the last category I fully agree.
> > We've been over and over this issue. Userland programs not
> > using kernel headers is the only sensible solution. This is
> > not just some bogus rule of thumb I came up with on the spur
> > of the moment.
> There is userland, kernel sea and systems shore ;-)

So how about this:

Userland: Don't use kernel headers. Stick to the headers that glibc

Kernel sea: Already has its own headers. Doesn't need glibc headers

Systems shore: Explicitly include a -I/path_to_kernel_source/include in
the Makefiles, so it gets the kernel headers it needs -- without
requiring the glibc headers to match the kernel.

> --
> Dr. Horst H. von Brand
> Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431
> Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239
> Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513

     Buddha Buck            
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects."  -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice