6.0-testing linux-libc-header vs. kernel headers

Zeplin zeps at ihug.com.au
Mon Jul 12 04:34:51 PDT 2004


Hai - Zaar wrote:
> Greetings!
> 
> LFS Version 6.0-testing-200407010
> 
> I as far as I understood, linux-libc-headers package is intended to 
> replace old method of keeping
> raw kernel headers glibc was compiled against.

Not quite, Sanitised headers are used for user space programs to compile 
against.
Its been sugested that glibc should compile against the kernel headers 
so that it has an acurate idea of what the kernel can do, from what I 
understand.
A good example of this, Is the breakage seen when a ck patched kernel 
was used to compile glibc, small breakage was present. Good 
experimentation, but produced an unreliable system.

> So why both in Chapter5 and Chapter6 of the book, although 
> linux-libc-headers package is installed, kernel-headers are installed as 
> well, and glibc is configured to use kernel-headers and not 
> linux-libc-headers?
It is possible to compile against the pld headers. The problem previous 
to LFS picking a set of headers, was that several options were, and 
still are, availible. Including the use of 2.4 kernel headers, using red 
hats headers, patching each program that has an issue with 
non-sanitiesed etc.

It might be worth emailing the glibc guys and seeing what they suggest 
when compiling. If sanitised 2.6 headers are acceptable. I do remember a 
conversation there that wasnt to nice last time the subject came up =)



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list