From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mariusz Mazur Subject: Re: iproute2 and kernel headers Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 19:14:40 +0200 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <200408031914.40751.mmazur@kernel.pl> References: <20040802153805.487f832f@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> <20040803001459.GA8637@irc.pl> <20040803083142.5a4ccaad@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Stephen Hemminger In-Reply-To: <20040803083142.5a4ccaad@dell_ss3.pdx.osdl.net> Content-Disposition: inline Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On wtorek 03 sierpie=F1 2004 17:31, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > I am willing to put some headers (not all) in with the user level > > > code, provided they are copies since they I can easily update. I do= n't > > > want to get into keeping an edited set of headers in sync. > > > > Aren't linux-libc-headers (*) sufficient? > > > > * - http://ep09.pld-linux.org/~mmazur/linux-libc-headers/ > > The theory of that is good, but in practice it would make the problem > worse. What iproute2 wants is to have the same kernel data structures a= s > the latest kernel. It is awkward enough making sure to get them from th= e > correct kernel sources, but doing it from a different package would mak= e > updating and keeping everything current worse. This message was forwarded to me (I'm the llh maintainer). Llh is being=20 updated by generating a diff between incremental kernel releases, fixing = that=20 diff and applying it to the last version of llh. I do have scripts to che= ck=20 wether such an update doesn't break any headers. There is a slight=20 possibility that such an update might omit some crucial changes, but (at=20 least when it comes to network headers) co-developers of my distribution=20 (PLD) will most likely detect that allmost instantly and notify me what's= =20 wrong (in such a case I will release a fixed version of llh asap). Since removing all those glibc/linux-headers workarounds from=20 iproute2/iptables was quite a pain for me I would really like to see buil= ding=20 against llh at least as an option available from 'configure'. (In case you're wondering - yes, we've been building all the linux networ= k=20 userland stuff against llh for about 8 months now without any problems...= =20 quite the opposite actually) --=20 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