This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Kernel headers.

From: Robert Schwebel <robert at schwebel dot de>
To: crossgcc list <crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 09:12:00 +0100
Subject: Re: Kernel headers.
References: <4224A66C.6040000@zee2.com> <20050301175946.GD5834@server.schwinge.homeip.net> <4224AEF3.8010006@kegel.com>

On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 10:05:39AM -0800, Daniel Kegel wrote:
> I'm tempted to try using the sanitized headers for everything,
> but I'll probably always keep an option to use the real
> kernel headers, since the sanitized ones might not work
> for every platform.

Does anybody know why the kernel maintainers are against just sanitizing
the kernel headers, instead of duplicating all that stuff and open up
the next maintainance hell? I assume there are reasons, but which ones? 

Robert
-- 
 Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de
 Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry
   Handelsregister:  Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686
     Hannoversche Str. 2, 31134 Hildesheim, Germany
   Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |  Fax: +49-5121-206917-9


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Kernel headers.
  - From: Mike Frysinger

References:
- Kernel headers.
  - From: Steve Papacharalambous
- Re: Kernel headers.
  - From: Thomas Schwinge
- Re: Kernel headers.
  - From: Daniel Kegel

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]