linux-libc-headers scsi headers vs libc scsi headers

linux-libc-headers scsi headers vs libc scsi headers

[DervishD]

    Hi all :)

    I'm going to build a new glibc for my system, and I've installed
'linux-libc-headers', but I've noticed that it provides headers for
'scsi/' subdir, and glibc *does that too*. Should I use the scsi
headers from llh? Should I instead compiled my new glibc without that
headers and let it install them as needed? Should I NOT use any linux
header for building my new glibc (2.3.4 BTW)?

    Thanks a lot in advance :)

    Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

-- 
Linux Registered User 88736
http://www.dervishd.net & http://www.pleyades.net/
It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to...

Re: linux-libc-headers scsi headers vs libc scsi headers

[DervishD]

    Hi all and sorry for self-answering:
 * DervishD <lkml@dervishd.net> dixit:

> 'linux-libc-headers', but I've noticed that it provides headers for
> 'scsi/' subdir, and glibc *does that too*. Should I use the scsi
> headers from llh? Should I instead compiled my new glibc without that
> headers and let it install them as needed? Should I NOT use any linux
> header for building my new glibc (2.3.4 BTW)?

    Yes, I know, this is in the llh FAQ, but the answer starts with
'Not too sure on this one', that's the reason I'm asking here...

    Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

-- 
Linux Registered User 88736
http://www.dervishd.net & http://www.pleyades.net/
It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to...

Re: linux-libc-headers scsi headers vs libc scsi headers

[Mariusz Mazur]

On środa 30 marzec 2005 20:10, DervishD wrote:
>     Yes, I know, this is in the llh FAQ, but the answer starts with
> 'Not too sure on this one', that's the reason I'm asking here...

Use whatever works. And ignore anybody telling you, that your system will blow 
up if you use the wrong headers to compile something.

-- 
In the year eighty five ten
God is gonna shake his mighty head
He'll either say,
"I'm pleased where man has been"
Or tear it down, and start again

Re: linux-libc-headers scsi headers vs libc scsi headers

[DervishD]

    Hi Mariusz :)

 * Mariusz Mazur <mmazur@kernel.pl> dixit:
> On ?roda 30 marzec 2005 20:10, DervishD wrote:
> >     Yes, I know, this is in the llh FAQ, but the answer starts with
> > 'Not too sure on this one', that's the reason I'm asking here...
> Use whatever works. And ignore anybody telling you, that your system will blow 
> up if you use the wrong headers to compile something.

    The fact is that, in the past, I've used kernel headers older
than my running kernel for building glibc and my system worked
seamlessly (although I don't use bleeding edge features, you know),
but I don't want to take risks.

    I don't know which set of headers will work, and in fact I don't
know if I must follow 'Linux From Scratch' advice and use raw kernel
headers for building glibc and LLH headers for any other thing. I
think I probably will use the LLH headers (including scsi) for
everything since glibc passes the 'make check' doing that... If I
screw my system badly, I have lotsa backups at hand.

    Thanks for your advice :)

    Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

-- 
Linux Registered User 88736
http://www.dervishd.net & http://www.pleyades.net/
It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to...

Re: linux-libc-headers scsi headers vs libc scsi headers

[Mariusz Mazur]

On czwartek 31 marzec 2005 09:45, DervishD wrote:
>     The fact is that, in the past, I've used kernel headers older
> than my running kernel for building glibc and my system worked
> seamlessly (although I don't use bleeding edge features, you know),
> but I don't want to take risks.

You risk nothing. APIs in linux change incrementally and if kernel hackers do 
want to drop support for an api, they're very vocal about it and it doesn't 
concern stuff that can blow up your computer (see oss vs. alsa).

>     I don't know which set of headers will work, and in fact I don't
> know if I must follow 'Linux From Scratch' advice and use raw kernel
> headers for building glibc and LLH headers for any other thing. I
> think I probably will use the LLH headers (including scsi) for
> everything since glibc passes the 'make check' doing that... If I
> screw my system badly, I have lotsa backups at hand.

Like I've said, you're unable to break your system this way. And I don't see 
any point in LFS suggesting using raw kernel headers to compile glibc (no you 
*can't* screw up your system by using llh unless I specifically switch ioctls 
so apps remove files instead of opening them; I just can't see any 
possibility to do it by accident).

And I'll add an entry to the llh FAQ to clear this matter up.


-- 
In the year eighty five ten
God is gonna shake his mighty head
He'll either say,
"I'm pleased where man has been"
Or tear it down, and start again

Re: linux-libc-headers scsi headers vs libc scsi headers

[DervishD]

    Hi Mariusz :)

 * Mariusz Mazur <mmazur@kernel.pl> dixit:
> >     I don't know which set of headers will work, and in fact I don't
> > know if I must follow 'Linux From Scratch' advice and use raw kernel
> > headers for building glibc and LLH headers for any other thing. I
> > think I probably will use the LLH headers (including scsi) for
> > everything since glibc passes the 'make check' doing that... If I
> > screw my system badly, I have lotsa backups at hand.
> Like I've said, you're unable to break your system this way.

    I think so... 

> And I don't see any point in LFS suggesting using raw kernel
> headers to compile glibc

    I don't know their reasons because I haven't read any rationale
(if any exists at all). Anyway, I've used LLH (including the scsi
part) for building my new glibc and 'make check' passes. In fact, I'm
answering this email from the system I've upgraded, so glibc seems to
work ok ;)

> (no you can't* screw up your system by using llh unless I
> *specifically switch ioctls so apps remove files instead of opening
> them; I just can't see any possibility to do it by accident).
 
    That's what I thought. Apps must, first, use glibc headers, not
kernel ones, and that cannot be broken by using llh, and in fact I
rely on llh because mistakes in the kernel headers will probably be
noticed very, very fast.
 
> And I'll add an entry to the llh FAQ to clear this matter up.

    Thank you :) BTW, you've done a great work with llh. I really
like it and that's the reason I chose llh and not raw kernel headers
in the first place. Keep on doing such a great job :)

    Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

-- 
Linux Registered User 88736
http://www.dervishd.net & http://www.pleyades.net/
It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to...

Re: linux-libc-headers scsi headers vs libc scsi headers

[Jesper Juhl]

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, DervishD wrote:

> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:17:26 +0200
> From: DervishD <lkml@dervishd.net>
> To: Mariusz Mazur <mmazur@kernel.pl>
> Cc: Linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: linux-libc-headers scsi headers vs libc scsi headers
> 
>     Hi Mariusz :)
> 
>  * Mariusz Mazur <mmazur@kernel.pl> dixit:
> > >     I don't know which set of headers will work, and in fact I don't
> > > know if I must follow 'Linux From Scratch' advice and use raw kernel
> > > headers for building glibc and LLH headers for any other thing. I
> > > think I probably will use the LLH headers (including scsi) for
> > > everything since glibc passes the 'make check' doing that... If I
> > > screw my system badly, I have lotsa backups at hand.
> > Like I've said, you're unable to break your system this way.
> 
>     I think so... 
> 
> > And I don't see any point in LFS suggesting using raw kernel
> > headers to compile glibc
> 
>     I don't know their reasons because I haven't read any rationale
> (if any exists at all). Anyway, I've used LLH (including the scsi


http://uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0007.3/0587.html seems to have a 
bearing on what you are discussing - just FYI.


-- 
Jesper Juhl

Re: linux-libc-headers scsi headers vs libc scsi headers

[DervishD]

    Hi Jesper :)

 * Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk> dixit:
> > > And I don't see any point in LFS suggesting using raw kernel
> > > headers to compile glibc
> >     I don't know their reasons because I haven't read any rationale
> > (if any exists at all). Anyway, I've used LLH (including the scsi
> http://uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0007.3/0587.html seems to have a 
> bearing on what you are discussing - just FYI.

    Not exactly. My doubt is not about whether use symlinks to linux
and asm in the linux kernel or not, is about using what glibc people
prefer or seem to prefer (raw kernel headers) or using llh. I know
that I don't have to use the current kernel headers in /usr/include,
but the ones used when compiling my libc or (better) llh.

    Thanks anyway :)

    Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

-- 
Linux Registered User 88736
http://www.dervishd.net & http://www.pleyades.net/
It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to...