On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 00:53 +0100, [email protected] wrote: > Is there a way to only build "supported" headers? And if not, why is > it this way? >
No, short of manually installing the header files yourself. As to why, I imagine it's mostly that it's unnecessary complexity to make that stuff optional - especially given that the kernel configuration can change often, which with your approach, would force the entire userspace (from glibc down) to be rebuilt to match the new configuration. Instead, most software will simply deal with it at runtime. Maybe you've disabled IPv6 support because you're not using it - but you still provide all of the APIs for doing so. And tools which care about such things will simply look at your available network interfaces at runtime, and conclude that IPv6 isn't being used. They'll still support it - but they won't use it, because it's not available. Incidentally, think about your question in the context of distros... the amount of flow-on effects that occur from such a setup. They'd need different header packages for every possible kernel configuration, and ditto glibc packages, and other userspace stuff. Or, they'd have to forbid users from using custom kernels, which would enrage a small but very vocal proportion of their users. Simon.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
