glibc headers versus linux kernel headers

Mike Frysinger vapier@gentoo.org
Mon Sep 14 13:52:00 GMT 2009


On Monday 14 September 2009 07:43:52 Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 13 September 2009 22:03:53 Alexander Haley wrote:
> >> for example: /usr/include/scsi/scsi.h - the linux kernel's make
> >> headers_install provides one, so does glibc's make install ....
> >>
> >> I'm not even sure of what my 'thought / question process' should be so
> >> as to arrive at a decision about which to keep ... any suggestions and
> >> or teaching about 'how things are put together' that will help me
> >> understand the answer?
> >
> > they're pretty much the same thing.  most people use the one from glibc.
> 
> IMO, everyone, except for a handful of people, use the C Library headers.
> 
> The standard distribution build process is:
> * Install kernel headers (required by glibc build)
> * Build glibc.
> * Package glibc + kernel header files as the glibc/glibc development
>  packages.
> 
> It is the responsibility of C library to keep your application
> building, and sometimes that means overriding kernel header files.
> However, this happens much less now given the kernel's assurance that
> the header install target produces something useful for userspace.

wrt scsi/, i'm pretty sure it's more a matter of the kernel headers didnt use 
to provide them.  considering glibc requires linux-2.6 headers now for nptl, 
seems like it'd make sense to drop them.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-help/attachments/20090914/c80f066a/attachment.sig>


More information about the Libc-help mailing list