From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jim Gifford Subject: Re: Use of Kernel Headers Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:09:27 -0700 Sender: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org Message-ID: <41227407.1030406@jg555.com> References: <41226D56.3080800@jg555.com> <200408172200.07018.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200408172200.07018.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk> Errors-To: netfilter-admin@lists.netfilter.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Netfilter Antony Stone wrote: >On Tuesday 17 August 2004 9:40 pm, Jim Gifford wrote: > > > >>I have been asked this question a lot of times, and I think it should be >>asked here for an official answer. >> >>It has been stated numerous times that userspace programs should not be >>compiled against raw kernel headers, but iptables does compile against >>userspace headers and breaks this rule. With the advent of the >>linux-libc-headers package, should iptables be compiled against the >>linux-libc-headers or the raw kernel headers since iptables is a user >>space program? >> >>Should patch-o-matic update the headers in the proper location, >>/usr/include/linux/netfilter_ipv4 etc? >> >> > >Patch-o-matic is not the right way of doing this - this would be dealt with in >a new version release of iptables. > >P-o-M is for adding new features and functions (which are optional and not >used by most iptables users) to netfilter; it couldn't sensibly be used to >change the structure of how it compiles. > >As for the answer to your question, I think that is one for the developers' >list. Some of them do read this list, but cannot be guaranteed to see all >posts or respond to them due to the volume. > >Regards, > >Antony. > > > Thanx Anthony, will do. -- ---- Jim Gifford maillist@jg555.com