Ch 5: Why both kernel headers?

Jeremy Utley jeremy at jutley.org
Tue Sep 14 23:27:52 PDT 2004


On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:18:18 -0700
"Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:

> Kevin White wrote:
> 
> > Ahhh, OK, and glibc needs the raw headers, rather than the sanitized
> > ones?
> 
> Yes, although the current "unstable" book is being built with even
> glibc 
>   using the sanitized headers, and so far there have not been any 
> trouble reports related to that.

The only problem in using the sanitized headers for glibc is if you
happen to be building at a time when Marisuz (the guy who does the
linux-libc-headers) is behind the kernel.  For example, if you build
against the 2.6.8.1 headers package after 2.6.9 is released, glibc won't
get access to new ABI def's that were not present in 2.6.8.1.  But,
building glibc against sanitized headers fits more with what the kernel
developers say should happen.

-J-



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list