From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.windriver.com (mail.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 500F04C80815 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:18:20 -0600 (CST) Received: from ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-mail03 [147.11.57.144]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA9FIJ17016459 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:18:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from ala-mail06.corp.ad.wrs.com ([147.11.57.147]) by ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:18:19 -0800 Received: from Macintosh-5.local ([172.25.36.228]) by ala-mail06.corp.ad.wrs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:18:19 -0800 Message-ID: <4CD9663A.50200@windriver.com> Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 09:18:18 -0600 From: Mark Hatle Organization: Wind River Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: yocto@yoctoproject.org References: <8EA2C2C4116BF44AB370468FBF85A77701BC9526F4@orsmsx504.amr.corp.intel.com><4CD8601A.4090500@windriver.com><8EA2C2C4116BF44AB370468FBF85A77701BCA3809D@orsmsx504.amr.corp.intel.com> <4CD8E634.1090403@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <4CD8E634.1090403@windriver.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Nov 2010 15:18:19.0668 (UTC) FILETIME=[57461D40:01CB8021] Subject: Re: [PULL] devel/toolchain Recipes upgrades X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:18:20 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/9/10 12:12 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On 10-11-08 7:41 PM, Kamble, Nitin A wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bruce Ashfield [mailto:bruce.ashfield@windriver.com] >> >> Out of curiosity. What's the logic/requirement behind this >> change ? Since we don't have a 'supported' 2.6.36 kernel, using >> these would be a mismatch with what is actually booting on >> the targets. >> >> There's probably something I just don't understand here, so >> apologies in advance for the (potentially) dumb question. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bruce >> >> >> Bruce, >> AFAIU the linux-libc-headers are independent from the running kernel. These are headers for libc. > > But they aren't. The libc headers should be coupled to the > kernel version. New ABIs are established and glibc can detect > and deal with this, but you should never have a newer set of > headers than the running kernel. > > To say the least, I'd like more explanation of this change. I agree with Bruce here. If anything the linux-libc-headers should be the same or OLDER then the running kernel for this exact reason. It's quite dangerous for newer kernel headers, as they may trigger behavioral differences within the glibc configuration. > Bruce > >> >> Thanks, >> Nitin > > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto