On Thursday, October 28, 2010 13:51:05 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: > On 10/28/10 7:42 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>>>> Il giorno lun, 25/10/2010 alle 18.50 -0300, Alexis Ballier ha scritto: > >>>>>> Am I missing something obvious or is it just hiding a bug in the > >>>>>> linux > >>>>>> headers? I see no usage of INT_MAX in the patched .c file... > > > > the maintainer already has done his due diligence and reviewed the > > field. at this point, it is *you* who disagrees with the situation > > thus it is *you* who needs to resolve *your* complaint. > > Just curious: what are the technical reasons for that? > > My understanding is that one header depends on another for proper > compilation but doesn't #include it. Is that correct?
the Linux guys are very averse to Linux headers pulling in things from the C library even though it probably makes sense to do so -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
