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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox