public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* sanitized kernel headers
@ 2006-01-07  9:59 Alexander E. Patrakov
  2006-01-08 10:31 ` Andrew Walrond
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Alexander E. Patrakov @ 2006-01-07  9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: LKML

Hello,

almost two years ago, a decision has been made that raw kernel headers 
are for the kernel only, and that userspace should be built against some 
"sanitized" kernels. Linux-Libc-Headers 
(http://ep09.pld-linux.org/~mmazur/linux-libc-headers/) were one of the 
implementations of such sanitized headers, and they worked well and were 
used e.g. in Linux From Scratch.

But now, the Linux-Libc-Headers project looks dead: no commits in the 
SVN for the last two months, and the only changes in SVN as compared to 
LLH 2.6.12.0 are addition of inotify.h, removal of some kernel-only 
headers and some minor fix for non-glibc systems.

What is the recommended (non-dead) alternative implementation of such 
"sanitized" headers? Where is the roadmap for this area?

-- 
Alexander E. Patrakov
Don't mail to patrakov@ums.usu.ru: the server is off until 2006-01-11
Use my GMail or linuxfromscratch address instead


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: sanitized kernel headers
  2006-01-07  9:59 sanitized kernel headers Alexander E. Patrakov
@ 2006-01-08 10:31 ` Andrew Walrond
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Walrond @ 2006-01-08 10:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

On Saturday 07 January 2006 09:59, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>
> What is the recommended (non-dead) alternative implementation of such
> "sanitized" headers? Where is the roadmap for this area?

I still don't buy the arguments of the kernel maintainers who shun 
responsibility for this. My undoubtedly naive position is that

1) The kernel does a load of really clever low level stuff, and presents a 
stable API that the rest of the world (userspace) can use

2) Every part of that API that userspace needs should be presented to 
userspace in a consistent and reliably useable way

3) Any part of the kernel to which userspace absolutely needs access _must_ be 
part of that consistently and reliably presented API.

This 'sanitized kernel headers' mess (the single biggest _PITA_ for all small 
independent  linux distro creators/maintainers) should either

1) be unnecessary
2) be included as part of the kernel sources and acknowledged as specifically 
for use by userspace

Currently affected userspace packages include stuff like glibc, directfb, 
netfilter, iproute2, alsa, iputils, pcmcia-cs, udev and wireless-tools.

Andrew Walrond
[thumbs nose, dons hardhat, dives into hastily prepared bunker]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2006-01-08 10:31 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-01-07  9:59 sanitized kernel headers Alexander E. Patrakov
2006-01-08 10:31 ` Andrew Walrond

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