linux-libc-headers 2.6.37

linux-libc-headers 2.6.37

[Darren Hart]

We currently build at least some MACHINES with 2.6.37 of
linux-libc-headers. This can cause problems for newer packages (such as
connman) that expect more recent headers (if_alg.h is missing prior to
2.6.39). While the proper fix is to ensure these packages can cope with
older headers, for MACHINES shipping 3.0+ kernels, seems to me we should
be using the linux-libc-headers matching the kernels. I know this has
come up in the past, but I don't recall if we have clearly stated and
justified what our policy is here.

Any thoughts on this?

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: linux-libc-headers 2.6.37

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 11-12-13 6:33 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> We currently build at least some MACHINES with 2.6.37 of
> linux-libc-headers. This can cause problems for newer packages (such as
> connman) that expect more recent headers (if_alg.h is missing prior to
> 2.6.39). While the proper fix is to ensure these packages can cope with
> older headers, for MACHINES shipping 3.0+ kernels, seems to me we should
> be using the linux-libc-headers matching the kernels. I know this has
> come up in the past, but I don't recall if we have clearly stated and
> justified what our policy is here.

They should match were possible. I updated master to have 3.0 and 3.1
headers and no longer have .37 as the default.

Where is the 2.6.37 trickling in ? i.e. which boards/branch ?

Bruce

>
> Any thoughts on this?
>

Re: linux-libc-headers 2.6.37

[Darren Hart]

On 12/13/2011 03:41 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 11-12-13 6:33 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>> We currently build at least some MACHINES with 2.6.37 of
>> linux-libc-headers. This can cause problems for newer packages (such as
>> connman) that expect more recent headers (if_alg.h is missing prior to
>> 2.6.39). While the proper fix is to ensure these packages can cope with
>> older headers, for MACHINES shipping 3.0+ kernels, seems to me we should
>> be using the linux-libc-headers matching the kernels. I know this has
>> come up in the past, but I don't recall if we have clearly stated and
>> justified what our policy is here.
> 
> They should match were possible. I updated master to have 3.0 and 3.1
> headers and no longer have .37 as the default.
> 
> Where is the 2.6.37 trickling in ? i.e. which boards/branch ?

This was on fri2 yocto/standard/fri2.

> 
> Bruce
> 
>>
>> Any thoughts on this?
>>
> 

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: linux-libc-headers 2.6.37

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 11-12-13 6:43 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>
>
> On 12/13/2011 03:41 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 11-12-13 6:33 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> We currently build at least some MACHINES with 2.6.37 of
>>> linux-libc-headers. This can cause problems for newer packages (such as
>>> connman) that expect more recent headers (if_alg.h is missing prior to
>>> 2.6.39). While the proper fix is to ensure these packages can cope with
>>> older headers, for MACHINES shipping 3.0+ kernels, seems to me we should
>>> be using the linux-libc-headers matching the kernels. I know this has
>>> come up in the past, but I don't recall if we have clearly stated and
>>> justified what our policy is here.
>>
>> They should match were possible. I updated master to have 3.0 and 3.1
>> headers and no longer have .37 as the default.
>>
>> Where is the 2.6.37 trickling in ? i.e. which boards/branch ?
>
> This was on fri2 yocto/standard/fri2.

What does your: meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc have
as the default ? It should be LINUXLIBCVERSION ?= "3.1".

I'm talking about master for that default. In the release branches
it was still back on 2.6.37.

Is that being overridden somewhere in meta-intel that would trigger
the 2.6.37 (the old default) ? I didn't find anything, but that doesn't
mean I didn't miss it.

Bruce

>
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on this?
>>>
>>
>