On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Craig Small wrote:
> Tomi Manninen OH2BNS said:
> > On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 02:24:43AM +0000, Jorge Matias wrote:
> > > > Probably you don't have symbolic links:
> > > > /usr/include/asm to /usr/src/linux/include/asm-i386
> > > > /usr/include/linux to /usr/src/linux/include/linux
> > >
> > > And be glad that you don't, because you shouldn't.
> >
> > Oh? Really? Then how come a _LOT_ of my glibc headers include <linux/*.h>
> > and/or <asm/*.h> ? Is glibc supposed to replace all those some day (good
> > luck!) ?
> A lot? Hmm, I have approximately 20 headers including linux/*, mostly in
> the net,netinet and sys areas and they're probably grabbing magic
> numbers and about 10 headers including asm/* also mostly in netinet and
> sys.
Ok, maybe the "a lot" part was a bit exaggerated.
> I have resisted the temptation to launch into yet another tirade at the
> totally brokeness of some distro's headers. Most people know my
> opinions already about that.
I hope you don't mean Red Hat and the netax25/*.h fiasco. Because that
wasn't at all Red Hats fault. We could try to blame the glibc folks but
that too were unfair. No, it's us, the ax.25 developers who are to blame.
> Yes, the general idea is to remove or reduce the number of linux/*.h and
> asm/*.h headers and other headers that include them. There are very good
> reasons for doing so.
Out of curiosity: How do they intend to cope with kernel api changes? Like
the one we had in 2.0.35 -> 36 and again 2.0.x -> 2.2.x (and probably
2.2.x -> 2.4.x). I hope they have a plan.
--
--- Tomi Manninen / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / OH2BNS @ OH2RBI.FIN.EU ---
