lkml on kernel headers and glibc (et al)

Donald Smith dss-lfs at
Wed May 28 21:04:06 PDT 2003

Ken Dyke wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 May 2003 20:55, Greg Schafer wrote:
>>Will it be such a big deal
>>if this also applies to the kernel headers? Probably not.
> Probably not.  At least not today.  Probably not tomorrow either.  But RedHat 
> is developing two very different products these days (and the difference will 
> only get bigger).  The enterprise edition is serveral hundred dollars a copy.  
> It is meant to be very stable.  The comsumer desktop edition is pushing the 
> bleeding beta edge more each day.  I think RedHat has come to see it as a 
> testing ground for packages that after a year of beta testing by millions of 
> consumers gets merged into their corporate product line.
> Now, all this is fine and dandy.  And I hope RedHat makes money.  But that 
> does not necessarily mean that RedHat's best interests are my best interests.  
> As was evidenced in the lkml thread the RedHat employee responsible for the 
> headers package was not very forth coming as to how he decided what went in.  
> Looking at the changelog in the spec file from the srpm other RH employees 
> contribute to the maintenance of the package.
> P.S.  Zack, thank you for making your headers package available.  I'll ask for 
> a URL if I can't find them when I eventually go looking for them.

And I still don't understand the kernel guys' stance on this. They 
provide the interface so why not the header files? In my opinion, 
they're just lazy.

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list