On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
It's because of this that I continue to feel that kernel interfaces are
best defined by the kernel.
If the kernel headers aren't an interface, why do they exist? There
appears to be a very large philosophical gulf here.
On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 05:59, Branden Robinson wrote:
If the kernel revs in such a way as to break
ioctl numbers, there's no userland way around it, is there?
No. On the other hand, this virtually never happens. The kernel people
are usually quite disciplined about not making changes that
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:37:52AM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
About the only thing you can do is to discontinue use of the kernel
headers altogether and provide your own, unconditional, definitions
(with different names if there is any danger that the kernel's version
of them might become
On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 20:34, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:37:52AM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
About the only thing you can do is to discontinue use of the kernel
headers altogether and provide your own, unconditional, definitions
(with different names if there is any
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 08:55:22PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
This means forking from XFree86 upstream in a way that I'm not entirely
comfortable with. Is there anyone around who is familiar with DRM
innards who would be willing to work with me and upstream to get this
fix implemented in
Hello,
Could someone explain to me the point of releasing
Xfree86 4.1.0-15 as is when clearly patch #065 was
going to break builds on most non-intel arches?
* patch #065: raped again by Herbert Xu and Ben Collins; you're not
supposed to Build-Depend on a kernel package and at the same
Opps...that bug report associated with this
problem is 141116 not 141114...sorry.
Jack
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 09:42:24PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
Hello,
Could someone explain to me the point of releasing
Xfree86 4.1.0-15 as is when clearly patch #065 was
going to break builds on most non-intel arches?
Actually, the patch was applied to FIX a problem with building xfree86
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 11:34:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Apparently, if the Linux kernel driver guys renumber some ioctls, the
right thing is for everybody's apps to break instantly.
Err, brainfart -- scratch that point. Obviously this happens no matter
where they're defined, because
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 11:59:36PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 11:34:26PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Apparently, if the Linux kernel driver guys renumber some ioctls, the
right thing is for everybody's apps to break instantly.
Err, brainfart -- scratch that
What we really should have is a nice low-level C library that encapsulates
such things and lets anyone use it...
All we really need is a master ioctl header that defines the numbers. It
would be Debian specific, but what the hell.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 -
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:04:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The kernel doesn't change ioctl numbers; they're actually competent at
maintaining their interfaces. OTOH, they don't consider their headers
such an interface, and they're happy to have them break randomly or not
work from
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 12:22:00AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:04:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The kernel doesn't change ioctl numbers; they're actually competent at
maintaining their interfaces. OTOH, they don't consider their headers
such an interface,
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 12:16:30AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
What we really should have is a nice low-level C library that encapsulates
such things and lets anyone use it...
All we really need is a master ioctl header that defines the numbers. It
would be Debian specific, but what
14 matches
Mail list logo
