linux/config.h (unstable)

Jeremy Utley jeremy at
Sun Jun 6 19:03:23 PDT 2004

DJ Lucas wrote:

> Jeremy Utley wrote:
>> DJ Lucas wrote:
>> I think a note in the book is better, to the best of my knowledge 
>> there's only 3 packages known to use this broken include - XFree86, 
>> Xorg,
>> and Xine-lib.  The thing we need to find out is, has anyone taken 
>> this upstream to them and found out how they will be handling this in 
>> future releases? 
> <Snip>
>> I'm especially interested in Ian's take on this, as a kernel hacker 
>> type guy :)
> As Ian mentioned, it's better for footnote material.  If these are the 
> only three packages...  I'll do cvs checkouts and see where they are 
> now...if they are not changed, I'll search and then drop a note on it 
> to the correct devel crews if necessary.  Also, I'd be interested to 
> see what is up with the distros' versions of the headers.  I would 
> think that alone should determine wether or not the upstream 
> maintainers make the necessary change.  At anyrate I'll do a bit more 
> homework, however, if it is decided to be a footnote, then the 
> improper fix I had suggested  should *not* be mentioned.
> -- DJ Lucas
AFAIK, the only distro using the same headers we're using is PLD, and I 
haven't looked to see what they do.  RH and MDK are using their own 
headers, Gentoo seems to be using raw stuff on a 2.6-only build (from 
what I could see), Slack's not doing 2.6 at all yet, and I have no clue 
what is up with Debian or SuSe (don't follow those).  Right now, I'm 
leaning towards a footnote in the LFS book, and further reinforcement in 
BLFS where it's necessary.

I'm not 100% sure about those packages being the only 3, but so far, 
that's all I've encountered.  There was an unrelated problem with headers in building a GNOME package, but that's since been fixed 
in  Pretty much everything else goes pretty cleanly.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list