Hi, At Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:39:10 +0400, Vitaly Fertman wrote: > > the header file used is actually asm/byteroder.h and macro is > > _PPC_BYTEORDER_H. 1:3.6.18-2 used asm/error.h but this broke things in > > a manner i didn't understand. > > > > > Looking through the kernel source, it seems lkh should be fixed. I > > > put the patch to lkh cvs. > > > > good :) > > > > > However, now we're base-freeze period, and at least I don't decide to > > > put new lkh package -18 into unstable and testing-proposed-updates > > > yet, so it's good idea to put workaround fix for reiserfsprogs. > > > > already put, uploaded and successfully built :) > > > > > BTW, I think reiserfsprogs is tightly coupled with the kernel version, > > > so I wonder it's OK to use lkh package, instead of using kernel > > > headers which are included from the latest kernel source to > > > reiserfsprogs. > > > > don't know, Hans Reiser should be able to answer this question. > > kernel has all its includes in the kernel source tree and does not > use standard ones, reiserfsprogs do not take anything from > any kernel source tree and use their own or standard includes. > asm/unaligned.h is included from glibc-devel on my computer.
I guess "glibc-devel" in Fedora Core is RedHat .rpm package, and I confirmed that it does not have any header files. If reiserfsprogs uses asm/unaligned.h in FC, then it's included in "glibc-kernheaders" package and this file is actually derived from linux kernel. In Debian, we use "linux-kernel-headers" package that role is equivalent to FC's glibc-kernheaders package. I sent the patch to ppc guys to fix this problem. If they apply my patch, the problem should be gone away. However, I think the question is still remained: should reiserfsprogs include some kernel version headers for each reiserfs modification versions, instead of using system headers directly? Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
