From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IfElp-0004UN-AR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:05:09 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l99CsGar004103; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:54:16 GMT Received: from gabriel.sub.uni-goettingen.de (gabriel.sub.uni-goettingen.de [134.76.163.126]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l99CmG8L027661 for ; Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:48:16 GMT Received: by gabriel.sub.uni-goettingen.de (Postfix, from userid 8) id F0CE83246B4; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:25:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (unknown [134.76.161.221]) by gabriel.sub.uni-goettingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F6D3246B3 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:25:24 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 14:48:15 +0200 From: Hans-Werner Hilse To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] linux-headers Message-Id: <20071009144815.8e2e025e.hilse@web.de> In-Reply-To: References: <200710071606.41948.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> <200710080005.21923.benno.schulenberg@gmail.com> <200710080044.22057.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> <20071008230840.ffe62d39.hilse@web.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.5 (GTK+ 2.12.0; i586-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on gabriel.sub.uni-goettingen.de X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.64 X-Archives-Salt: fc0675ed-b7a9-4998-937e-e6244bb0f446 X-Archives-Hash: 13ae3334521671b41b2f73c6c844c2d8 Hi, On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:50:56 -0400 Allan Gottlieb wrote: > Does that mean I am at some risk with headers at a higher version than > the kernel? I followed the advice at the end of the headers emerge > and remerged glibc. Most probably no danger here. The interfaces of the kernel seldom change that radical that a John Doe user would have to care. Also, most software is supposed to leave the kernel headers alone anyway. And you took care of glibc, so that's probably not going to cause headaches. Since that was a re-emerge, it won't produce a new interface for userland. I just explained why I found the first answer to your question somewhat lacking of argumentation and the further answers to my post then were just plain wrong. The moral is to never believe people who just claim stuff without giving a good reasoning. -hwh -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list