Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-09 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Sam" == Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Manoj> We already have a process for packages that actually do Manoj> need kernel headers, and are thus dependent on particular Manoj> kernel versions. Sam> We do? please explain what it is. Manoj> We call these packages kernel modules; an

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-09 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Sam" == Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sam> We are making active decisions related to this problem. Ben is Sam> actively removing headers not used by libc6-dev; For what it is worth, I do not agree with this process. I still think that libc-dev should come with a snapshot

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-08 Thread Herbert Xu
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 09:20:27AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > > We are making active decisions related to this problem. Ben is > actively removing headers not used by libc6-dev; there may be other I didn't know that. That's something that I don't agree with. -- Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! (

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-08 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Aaron" == Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Aaron> So you're saying it's better to hardcode sy

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-08 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Herbert" == Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Herbert> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This brings up an interesting point. While we should work with >> upstream maintainers to fix these problems, we should also try >> to avoid making these programs harder to

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-07 Thread Herbert Xu
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Out of curiosity, apart from linux/autoconf.h; what is the > difference between the header packages on i386? include/config/* and include/linux/modules/*. -- Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ ) Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~}

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-07 Thread Herbert Xu
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This brings up an interesting point. While we should work with > upstream maintainers to fix these problems, we should also try to > avoid making these programs harder to build on Debian than other > distributions. If other distributions are still making

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-07 Thread Miquel van Smoorenburg
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >People should not be using them, but if they do, they should use a >kernel-headers package, and not rely on the headers in libc6-dev which >are different on all archs, and change almost every new glibc build. You >are never gu

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-07 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Sam" == Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "Aaron" == Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Aaron> So you're saying it's better to hardcode syscall numbers Aaron> and stuff than using the kernel headers? Sre...

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-07 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Herbert" == Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Herbert> I won't look at all of them as this is really the Herbert> upstream maintainer's job. This brings up an interesting point. While we should work with upstream maintainers to fix these problems, we should also try to avoid

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-07 Thread Herbert Xu
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 01:50:45AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > (I tried my best but I can't garuantee this is 100% complete...) I won't look at all of them as this is really the upstream maintainer's job. > fdisk: > linux/unistd.h This one is always OK for obvious reasons. > linux/hdreg.h A

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Mon, 7 May 2001, Herbert Xu wrote: > > What do you suggest in my specific case with util-linux? > > Which specific program in util-linux and what specific headers? >... (I tried my best but I can't garuantee this is 100% complete...) fdisk: linux/unistd.h linux/hdreg.h linux/blkpg.h linux/typ

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Herbert" == Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Herbert> Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> We do? please explain what it is. Herbert produces kernel >> headers packages for all flavors of kernels he produces. I do >> not believe the other arches do this. H

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Herbert Xu
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We do? please explain what it is. Herbert produces kernel headers > packages for all flavors of kernels he produces. I do not believe the > other arches do this. You obviously weren't listening to me when I explained this in the bloat thread. If you ar

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> "Aaron" == Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Aaron> So you're saying it's better to hardcode syscall numbers Aaron> and stuff than using the kernel headers? Sre... Manoj> We already have a process f

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 03:45:39PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > What do you suggest in my specific case with util-linux? Which specific program in util-linux and what specific headers? > You mean every upstream source should ship it's own kernel headers? Yes, they should ship their own headers

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Adrian" == Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Adrian> I maintain util-linux that is a user space package that needs Adrian> many kernel headers (and the package in unstable compiles Adrian> only with 2.4 kernel headers). I do currently use the kernel Adrian> haeaders libc6-dev ships.

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Aaron" == Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Aaron> So you're saying it's better to hardcode syscall numbers and stuff Aaron> than using the kernel headers? Sre... We already have a process for packages that actually do need kernel headers, and are thus dependent on parti

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Itai" == Itai Zukerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Itai> Why not have the default KSRC be /usr/src/kernel-headers-X.X? I Itai> think that's what Ben suggested... Are you aware that that is what we used to do, circa libc5 days? And that we have moved away from that, for all the reas

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Anthony" == Anthony Towns writes: Anthony> All I want is to be able to build ipmasqadm... (It needs ip_masq.h, Anthony> which used to be in libc6-dev, but isn't any longer) % cp /path/to/old/kerhnel/source/include/linux/ipmasq.h ipmasq.h manoj -- The mosquito exists to keep the

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Herbert Xu wrote: > > I maintain util-linux that is a user space package that needs many kernel > > headers (and the package in unstable compiles only with 2.4 kernel > > headers). I do currently use the kernel haeaders libc6-dev ships. Would > > it be the right solution to co

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 12:28:32PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > I maintain util-linux that is a user space package that needs many kernel > headers (and the package in unstable compiles only with 2.4 kernel > headers). I do currently use the kernel haeaders libc6-dev ships. Would > it be the rig

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Herbert Xu wrote: >... > > the package not building with the changed kernel or not working after > > being installed at x*1000 machines? > > What is better is a sane local header that works with all kernels. I maintain util-linux that is a user space package that needs many k

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 10:43:25AM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 03:29:58PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > > Yes, because otherwise your code probably won't compile. > > ... when the kernel interface changed. Now tell me what is better - Nope, they won't compile at all

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Herbert Xu
Anthony Towns wrote: > All I want is to be able to build ipmasqadm... (It needs ip_masq.h, > which used to be in libc6-dev, but isn't any longer) For a legacy application like ipmasqadm, the solution is to simply copy ip_masq.h from a 2.2 kernel tree and be done with it. -- Debian GNU/Linux 2.2

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 03:06:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben> False. That is the very thing I want to alleviate (people using kernel > Ben> headers from the libc6-dev package). > However, that is what 99% of the programs out th

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Torsten Landschoff
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 03:29:58PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 01:25:32AM -0400, Itai Zukerman wrote: > > Also chiming in: Suppose my code reads a struct from a device file. > > That struct is defined in a kernel header (not part of glibc). You're > > saying I should duplica

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 01:25:32AM -0400, Itai Zukerman wrote: > > Also chiming in: Suppose my code reads a struct from a device file. > That struct is defined in a kernel header (not part of glibc). You're > saying I should duplicate that header in my source rather than > build-depend on kernel-

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-06 Thread Itai Zukerman
> > The thing is, kernel-headers should not be used at all unless you're > > compile glibc, or modules. Anything else will break. > > So you're saying it's better to hardcode syscall numbers and stuff > than using the kernel headers? Sre... Also chiming in: Suppose my code reads a struct fro

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Ben Collins
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 09:46:32AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > > The point here is to make packages start moving to Build-Dep'ing on > > kernel-headers-* packages. The question is, how to allow them to do that > > easily. > > Personally I think you're trying to solve a problem that will become a >

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 09:40:40PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > > > > Personally I think you're trying to solve a problem that will become a > > non-issue as people realise this and stop using kernel headers. > > That's wishful thinking, but I agree. I'm not sure it is possible > though. I'm more

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Herbert Xu
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 09:44:07PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: >> The thing is, kernel-headers should not be used at all unless you're >> compile glibc, or modules. Anything else will break. > False. That is the very thing I want to alleviate (people using k

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Aaron Lehmann
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 09:44:07PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote: > The thing is, kernel-headers should not be used at all unless you're > compile glibc, or modules. Anything else will break. So you're saying it's better to hardcode syscall numbers and stuff than using the kernel headers? Sre...

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Itai Zukerman
Je 05 May 2001 15:06:11 -0500, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scribis: > Try this: suggest the kernel-headers package, and set > CFLAGS += -I$(KSRC)/include > and instruct people to set the KSRC variable as needed. > [...] > Have a default value for KSRC if you need, and arrang

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Philip Blundell
>Now, how are we going to support: If there's a version of libc6 that's >known to use kernel headers incompatible with a particular >kernel-headers-*, then a package compiled against those kernel headers >should conflict with that libc6. Eh? Why would this be useful? p.

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Itai Zukerman
" would be something like "19" (as in 2.2.19). This way each > newer version would be prefered over the former. The only problem I see > are the -preX releases. Someone would have to suggest how to handle that > case since the priority field wont accept letters. > >

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Manoj Srivastava
>>"Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ben> False. That is the very thing I want to alleviate (people using kernel Ben> headers from the libc6-dev package). However, that is what 99% of the programs out there need to do, since they really are not dependent on the specifics

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 11:09:20AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > The point here is to make packages start moving to Build-Dep'ing on > kernel-headers-* packages. The question is, how to allow them to do that > easily. > > IMO, we can use alternatives. And it should be fairly easy > > update-altern

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Ben Collins
see are the -preX releases. Someone would have to suggest how to handle that case since the priority field wont accept letters. Also, I think that packages should Build-Depends on kernel-headers-X.X. IMO, There is no reason to build-dep on anything more specific, and also no reason to build-dep on

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Herbert Xu
Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 06:07:54AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: >> > AFAICT, I could conceivably add either >> Build-Depends: kernel-headers-2.2 >> or >> Build-Depends: kernel-headers-2.4 >> You'll notice that recent kernel-headers packages provide the >> major.min

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Herbert Xu
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 10:27:53AM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote: > > Actually, I'm not even completely convinced that having them in the > kernel-image package name is particularly beneficial. But, even if we leave > that the way it is, I don't think it's impossible to arrange for > kernel-hea

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 06:07:54AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 06:23:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > In short, how do you do them? > > AFAICT, I could conceivably add either > Build-Depends: kernel-headers-2.2 > or > Build-Depends: kernel-headers-2.4 > You'l

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Ben Collins
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 06:23:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > In short, how do you do them? > > AFAICT, I could conceivably add either > > Build-Depends: kernel-headers > or > Build-Depends: kernel-headers-2.2.19 > or Build-Depends: kernel-headers-2.2 or Build-Depe

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Philip Blundell
>Having version numbers in the kernel-headers package name is a consequence >of having them in the kernel-image package name. The point of having them >in the kernel-image package name should be pretty obvious... Actually, I'm not even completely convinced that having them in the kernel-image pa

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Herbert Xu
Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the whole idea of putting the kernel version number in the name of > the > headers package is pretty bogus. It would probably be better to just have a > "kernel-headers" package which installed itself in /usr/src/kernel-headers; > then you c

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Philip Blundell
>In short, how do you do them? What do you want to do with them? There are a whole load of wacky special source dependencies (*LINUX24-HEADERS and so on) which seem to be trying to solve variants of this problem. But this mechanism doesn't seem to be all that robust either. I think the whole

Re: build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Herbert Xu
Anthony Towns wrote: > The latter'll obviously break as soon as 2.2.20 comes out and 2.2.19 gets > removed from the archive. If you're building modules, then they'll have to be rebuilt when 2.2.20 comes out anyway. If this is a user-space program, then it better stop using kernel headers all to

build depends on kernel-headers

2001-05-05 Thread Anthony Towns
In short, how do you do them? AFAICT, I could conceivably add either Build-Depends: kernel-headers or Build-Depends: kernel-headers-2.2.19 If I did the former, there doesn't seem to be any way to reliably get at the kernel headers. The only way I can see is to hardcode -I/usr/src