Re: Kernel Header UAPI Issue
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 9:56 AM Karthik Poduval
Because it's not a simple thing to solve (and there's a bugzilla around for it
already, where the thoughts and issues are captured, but that one seems to
have been closed and I can't find it at the moment). I do have a WIP
class that provides some different modes
but with corner cases and concerns, it keeps slipping. Feel free to try it
out and comment in the bug (I'll try myself to be sure it still applied, it has
been a few months).
What works for your case, doesn't mean it is a general/supporable
But generally speaking, It's an incredibly bad idea to have your libc-headers
tied to the kernel you are building. Every time that kernel changes, you
basically need to rebuild the entire stack .. hence the bad idea. It is such
a common question, that we actually put a warning in the libc-headers
We do not really want a parallel set of headers in the shared workdir, that are
from the currently built kernel. You'd end up with all sorts of mismatches
and cross includes and potential different behaviour per-application.
We already have the kernel source installed into the shared workdir,
which is what the tips in the libc-headers recipe suggest using. And it
honestly isn't so common the need for sanitized headers that the need for
something like I did in that bug has made it necessary.
- Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end
- "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II