Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 30 May 1997 16:15:17 +0100 (BST) | | From | Philip Blundell <> | | Subject | Re: 2.0.x and glibc-2.0 collisions... |
| |
On Fri, 30 May 1997, Michael Poole wrote:
> I agree that's the wrong fix; I generally suppress the kernel > definitions. For most of the things I've run into, the only things which > are in the <linux/...> header files which are not provided by glibc are > file-system-related things -- mount and linux-nfs in particular use these > a bunch. For that, it's not an easy thing to figure out what the 'right' > thing to do, since as you mention, some of the types may differ between > the kernel and the libc.
Yes; I've heard about that before. The general feeling is that the least evil approach is for programs like `mount' to contain their own private header files with copies of the definitions they need. Since they're Linux-specific anyway this ought not to be a big problem for portability.
The other main offenders are the network stuff, which hopefully we now have covered by the files in /usr/include/net, and SCSI, which is still a bit of a dubious area.
p.
|  |