On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 02:14:00PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> This "cure" sucks worse than the disease. Now you're putting it onto
>>> everyone who maintains userspace to do the same repetitive task of
>>> "sanitizing" this. Especially for things this trivial, this is a
>>> ridiculous concept.
>>> For 2.7, getting real exportable ABI headers is so bloody necessary
>>> it's not even funny. However, for 2.5, breaking things randomly is
>>> not the way to go.
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> I would rather have real exportable ABI headers, yes. We don't have
>> them and AFAIK sanitized copies are the current policy.
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 03:46:01PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Unfortunately "the current policy" is unrealistic, and repeating it
> doesn't make it any less so.
No contest there; unfortunately unrealistic amounts of work seem to
be required to get around the general state of affairs at times. =(
Does it really have to be 2.7? It seems most of this would be header
reorganization with no runtime impact on the kernel.
-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 23 2003 - 22:00:37 EST