On 4/10/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 01:46:49PM -0600, Jeremy Herbison wrote: > > > > Either way, can you see any technical reasons why that would not make a good > > stop-gap solution for inotify etc. support? > > Yes. We can just add the inotify header and call it a day without > changing the method of building.
This is untested (I will be trying it out soon on my box), but here's a patch to add inotify.h to linux-libc-headers-2.6.12.0. I ran Jürg's sanitization script on linux-2.6.16, and this was the result. Actually, it removed nothing, the header is already sanitized. If anyone wants to try it out, I'd be interested in hearing the results. http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~dnicholson/downloads/linux-libc-headers-2.6.12.0-inotify-1.patch The other thing to check out would be adding the new syscalls. Greg has patched llh-2.6.12.0 to add them into the headers for x86. This is also untested by me. http://www.diy-linux.org/downloads/patches/linux-libc-headers-2.6.12.0-x86-syscalls-1.patch -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
