Santized Kernel Headers

DJ Lucas dj at
Sun Jan 22 07:29:22 PST 2006

Jim Gifford wrote:

<snip fixincludes (seemingly unrelated)>

> Now for my questions, my answers are in the ()
> Do we really want to pursue our own creating of sanitized headers? 
> (Possbily)

No...absolutely not.  It's a PITA.  However patching the files (what is 
the count now, 4 or 5 files?) that need changes doesn't seem so bad.

What are the known issues agains the released version/cvs?  What's been 
done so far?

> Do we want to wait for LLH? (Could be a long time)
> Do we want use 2.4 headers with patches, like the distro's? (NO!, may 
> loose some 2.6 ABI functionality)

As questioned in another post in this thread, in the past Mariusz has 
been very receptive to patches.

> I have copied both the LFS-DEV list and Cross-LFS list, this has been a 
> topic of some questions both in these lists and in IRC
> (yes I know, that's why I'm posting this message)

-- DJ Lucas

More information about the cross-lfs mailing list