Jonathan Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:03:17PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:17:39PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote: >>>> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:21:14AM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
>>>>> Since when does the package libc6-dev depend on linux-kernel-headers? Is >>>>> this dependes really necessary? >>>> There have always been some kernel headers in libc6-dev, they've just >>>> been split out into a separate package now. Several of these headers >>>> are referenced by headers provided by glibc which would break those >>>> headers if linux-kernel-headers is not installed. >>> I'd prefer the old way. >> And can you give a substantive reason? Without one your message makes >> no sense. > The new method installs linux-kernel-headers; The old method installed kernel-headers, too. Just not in a separate package. > these do not necessarily match the version of the kernel which the > user has. And they need not. /usr/include/linux should match the headers the c-library was compiled against. http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/kt20000814_80.html#4 > For example, I am running 2.4.22 but the > linux-kernel-headers package that aptitude wants me to install is > 2.5.999-test7-bk-6. > I don't know whether this package needs to match the kernel version or > not, but if not I think the name is poorly chosen. So your "substantive reason" is: "The name of the new package is poorly chosen."? - I don't think so, it describes the contents rather well, doesn't it? cu andreas -- Hey, da ist ein Ballonautomat auf der Toilette! Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest unstable _tin_ http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/~ametzler/debian/tin-snapshot/
