On wtorek 03 sierpień 2004 17:31, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > I am willing to put some headers (not all) in with the user level
> > > code, provided they are copies since they I can easily update. I don't
> > > want to get into keeping an edited set of headers in sync.
> > Aren't linux-libc-headers (*) sufficient?
> > * - http://ep09.pld-linux.org/~mmazur/linux-libc-headers/
> The theory of that is good, but in practice it would make the problem
> worse. What iproute2 wants is to have the same kernel data structures as
> the latest kernel. It is awkward enough making sure to get them from the
> correct kernel sources, but doing it from a different package would make
> updating and keeping everything current worse.
This message was forwarded to me (I'm the llh maintainer). Llh is being
updated by generating a diff between incremental kernel releases, fixing that
diff and applying it to the last version of llh. I do have scripts to check
wether such an update doesn't break any headers. There is a slight
possibility that such an update might omit some crucial changes, but (at
least when it comes to network headers) co-developers of my distribution
(PLD) will most likely detect that allmost instantly and notify me what's
wrong (in such a case I will release a fixed version of llh asap).
Since removing all those glibc/linux-headers workarounds from
iproute2/iptables was quite a pain for me I would really like to see building
against llh at least as an option available from 'configure'.
(In case you're wondering - yes, we've been building all the linux network
userland stuff against llh for about 8 months now without any problems...
quite the opposite actually)
In the year eighty five ten
God is gonna shake his mighty head
He'll either say,
"I'm pleased where man has been"
Or tear it down, and start again