lkml on kernel headers and glibc (et al)

Seth W.Klein sk at
Fri May 30 15:17:29 PDT 2003

Donald Smith <dss-lfs at> wrote:
> 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.

I think it's not like that.

In that thread, Linus expressed no opinion on future direction (only
saying that the existing headers were not clean for external use) and
Alan said that contributions were welcome. Basically, one gets the
impression that they're not fixing it because they have more broken
things to fix. If it's not obvious, these guys have enough work that
they must prioritize heavily.

Of those with the time to make a difference on something not totally
broken, which this is, the ones with the technical understanding were
in favor of the kernel providing headers for its public API.

Of the few who clearly favored a separate package, the foremost was
the maintainer of the RedHat package. He has a job at stake.

Unfortunately, no one claimed to have the time to produce a good
solution right now. I think the direction this will go is clear;
the speed, however, is not.

Seth W. Klein
sk at               
Maintainer, LFS FAQ   
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