[gentoo-dev] linux-headers-2.4.19 related to glibc-2.2.5?

[gentoo-dev] linux-headers-2.4.19 related to glibc-2.2.5?

[Wilbert van Bakel]

Hello All,

It was my understanding that the linux-headers in /usr/include were 
related to glibc.
Today I see that an update of the headers is waiting, and I'm just 
wondering if updating is riskless if I don't rebuild my glibc?

-- 
Wilbert van Bakel
________________________________________________________________________________
- AMD Duron/800 Mhz -
GCC-3.2: -pipe -O3 -falign-functions=4 -fomit-frame-pointer -fforce-addr -march=athlon-tbird -m3dnow -mmmx

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-headers-2.4.19 related to glibc-2.2.5?

[Sean]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

It shouldn't cause any problems ... since I don't use the gentoo supplied 
kernel source, I always keep a symlink from /usr/src/linux/include/linux to 
/usr/include/linux

Sean

On Sunday 08 September 2002 12:27 am, Wilbert van Bakel wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> It was my understanding that the linux-headers in /usr/include were
> related to glibc.
> Today I see that an update of the headers is waiting, and I'm just
> wondering if updating is riskless if I don't rebuild my glibc?

- -- 

GPG Public Key available: http://sean.gutenpress.org/sean.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9ez8UEEGQgHny9sQRAv/0AJ9cYu+HgOES0hTEeQeHOLRYC89r4QCfbR8n
aujVfXuGi4M/cd+TpBXy6gI=
=mV6S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-headers-2.4.19 related to glibc-2.2.5?

[Wilbert van Bakel]

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/view/3.3/chapter05/kernel.html:

Why we copy the kernel headers and don't symlink them
In the past, it was common practice for people to symlink the
/usr/include/linux and asm directories to /usr/src/linux/include/linux and
asm respectively. This is a bad idea as this extract from a post by Linus
Torvalds to the Linux Kernel Mailing List points out:

I would suggest that people who compile new kernels should:

 - not have a single symbolic link in sight (except the one that the
   kernel build itself sets up, namely the "linux/include/asm" symlink
   that is only used for the internal kernel compile itself)

And yes, this is what I do. My /usr/src/linux still has the old 2.2.13
header files, even though I haven't run a 2.2.13 kernel in a _loong_
time. But those headers were what glibc was compiled against, so those
headers are what matches the library object files.

And this is actually what has been the suggested environment for at
least the last five years. I don't know why the symlink business keeps
on living on, like a bad zombie. Pretty much every distribution still
has that broken symlink, and people still remember that the linux
sources should go into "/usr/src/linux" even though that hasn't been
true in a _loong_ time.


The relevant part here is where he states that the headers should be the
ones which glibc was compiled against. These are the headers which should
remain accessible and so by copying them, we ensure that we follow these
guidelines. Also note that as long as you don't have those symlinks, it is
perfectly fine to have the kernel sources in /usr/src/linux.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean" <sean@gutenpress.org>
To: <wilbertml@earthlink.net>; <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-headers-2.4.19 related to glibc-2.2.5?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

It shouldn't cause any problems ... since I don't use the gentoo supplied
kernel source, I always keep a symlink from /usr/src/linux/include/linux to
/usr/include/linux

Sean

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-headers-2.4.19 related to glibc-2.2.5?

[Sean]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Wow, I wasn't aware of any of that .... guess I'm gonna do a quick header file 
copy and recompile of glibc.

Thanks for the info and link!

Sean

On Sunday 08 September 2002 02:30 pm, Wilbert van Bakel wrote:
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/view/3.3/chapter05/kernel.html:
>
> Why we copy the kernel headers and don't symlink them
> In the past, it was common practice for people to symlink the
> /usr/include/linux and asm directories to /usr/src/linux/include/linux and
> asm respectively. This is a bad idea as this extract from a post by Linus
> Torvalds to the Linux Kernel Mailing List points out:
>
> I would suggest that people who compile new kernels should:
>
>  - not have a single symbolic link in sight (except the one that the
>    kernel build itself sets up, namely the "linux/include/asm" symlink
>    that is only used for the internal kernel compile itself)
>
> And yes, this is what I do. My /usr/src/linux still has the old 2.2.13
> header files, even though I haven't run a 2.2.13 kernel in a _loong_
> time. But those headers were what glibc was compiled against, so those
> headers are what matches the library object files.
>
> And this is actually what has been the suggested environment for at
> least the last five years. I don't know why the symlink business keeps
> on living on, like a bad zombie. Pretty much every distribution still
> has that broken symlink, and people still remember that the linux
> sources should go into "/usr/src/linux" even though that hasn't been
> true in a _loong_ time.
>
>
> The relevant part here is where he states that the headers should be the
> ones which glibc was compiled against. These are the headers which should
> remain accessible and so by copying them, we ensure that we follow these
> guidelines. Also note that as long as you don't have those symlinks, it is
> perfectly fine to have the kernel sources in /usr/src/linux.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sean" <sean@gutenpress.org>
> To: <wilbertml@earthlink.net>; <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>
> Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 7:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-headers-2.4.19 related to glibc-2.2.5?
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> It shouldn't cause any problems ... since I don't use the gentoo supplied
> kernel source, I always keep a symlink from /usr/src/linux/include/linux to
> /usr/include/linux
>
> Sean

- -- 

GPG Public Key available: http://sean.gutenpress.org/sean.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9e6IfEEGQgHny9sQRAkQuAJ90EZ8gDlrvoUWBAXK5kwjywUYLGQCgpc3A
TLATjU6nvV646FbJb14r+Bc=
=0dit
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-headers-2.4.19 related to glibc-2.2.5?

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 573 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 15:16:44 -0400
Sean <sean@gutenpress.org> wrote:

> Wow, I wasn't aware of any of that .... guess I'm gonna do a quick
> header file copy and recompile of glibc.
> 
> Thanks for the info and link!
> 
> Sean

<SNIP>
this all relates to the glibc updates that has been issued as well, its
a good time to update first the headers then the glibc when there is a
necessary update anyhow :)

//Spider

--
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-headers-2.4.19 related to glibc-2.2.5?

[William Kenworthy]

Actually, is there any policy for something like a core package being
changed/updated: portage does not seem to be able to direct the
recompilation of all dependencies, and for security fixes such as the
zlib one some time ago, this appears quite important.

BillK



On Fri, 2002-09-13 at 23:38, Spider wrote:
> begin  quote
> On Sun, 8 Sep 2002 15:16:44 -0400
> Sean <sean@gutenpress.org> wrote:
> 
> > Wow, I wasn't aware of any of that .... guess I'm gonna do a quick
> > header file copy and recompile of glibc.
> > 
> > Thanks for the info and link!
> > 
> > Sean
> 
> <SNIP>
> this all relates to the glibc updates that has been issued as well, its
> a good time to update first the headers then the glibc when there is a
> necessary update anyhow :)
> 
> //Spider
> 
> --
> begin  .signature
> This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
> See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
> end

[gentoo-dev] crypto-sources-r7 to r9?

[Matthew Swank]

Not to seem too ungratefull, but I was wondering how close the crypto-sources 
package was to being based on the same kernel release (well, ac patch) that 
the gentoo-sources package is.

Thanks,

Matt

Re: [gentoo-dev] crypto-sources-r7 to r9?

[Mark Bainter]

Matthew Swank [singollo@uwyo.edu] wrote:
> Not to seem too ungratefull, but I was wondering how close the crypto-sources 
> package was to being based on the same kernel release (well, ac patch) that 
> the gentoo-sources package is.

I'm also curious about this, particularly as it regards the possibility of
using a current release of the grsecurity patch.  The version used in this
kernel is next to unusable for me.  I can reconstruct what I need from the
crypto-sources build by hand, but if it's nearly done I'd rather not 
duplicate effort.

--