From: Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout@mind.be>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] glibc and --enable-kernel
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:35:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56AAA5BE.2050306@mind.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160128093618.42baf311@free-electrons.com>
On 28-01-16 09:36, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Sam,
>
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 13:55:37 +1100, Sam Bobroff wrote:
[snip]
>> Ok that is certainly easier and works for me, so I'll post a patch :-)
>>
>> I'm curious tho: when I hacked up some test code I used
>> BR2_DEFAULT_KERNEL_HEADERS (which seems to have the same value) but I must
>> confess I don't understand the implications of choosing between
>> BR2_DEFAULT_KERNEL_HEADERS or BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HEADERS_AT_LEAST. Could you explain
>> the difference so I don't have to read so much Make code? ;-)
>
> There would be no real difference between the two for your use case.
>
> BR2_DEFAULT_KERNEL_HEADERS is a string that contains the version number
> of the Linux kernel sources chosen in the linux-headers package. It
> would contain things like 3.2.76, 4.3.4, etc. or a user-specified
> kernel version. It would have worked all fine for your case.
>
> BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HEADERS_AT_LEAST is a string that exists for both the
> internal and external toolchains, and which indicates the "series" of
> the kernel headers (i.e just 3.2, 3.4, 4.0, etc.).
>
> The only reason that may encourage you to use
> BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HEADERS_AT_LEAST instead of BR2_DEFAULT_KERNEL_HEADERS is
> an upcoming patch from Yann E. Morin (already submitted but not merged
> yet), which allows to tell Buildroot to use the kernel version
> specified in the "Kernel" menu as the version for the kernel headers.
> In this case, I believe BR2_DEFAULT_KERNEL_HEADERS will not be correct,
> while BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HEADERS_AT_LEAST will be.
A minor issue with _AT_LEAST, however, is that it will probably go through
deprecation eventually. Right now we have "2.6" as the lowest _AT_LEAST - how
will glibc deal with that? I can imagine at some point we'll deprecate 3,1, 3.2,
and 3.3, so if you're using 3.3 headers the _AT_LEAST will become 3.0. Right
now, we already have that for 2.6.3x, which will fall back to 2.6.0 (I guess -
should be checked if glibc doesn't barf on 2.6 without .0).
Regards,
Arnout
--
Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint: 7493 020B C7E3 8618 8DEC 222C 82EB F404 F9AC 0DDF
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-28 23:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-27 4:21 [Buildroot] glibc and --enable-kernel Sam Bobroff
2016-01-27 8:21 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2016-01-28 2:55 ` Sam Bobroff
2016-01-28 8:36 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2016-01-28 23:35 ` Arnout Vandecappelle [this message]
2016-02-02 13:27 ` Peter Korsgaard
2016-02-02 16:56 ` Mike Frysinger
2016-02-04 4:10 ` Sam Bobroff
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56AAA5BE.2050306@mind.be \
--to=arnout@mind.be \
--cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.