The latest glibc package is compiled against the 2.4.32 and 2.6.15.3
kernel headers. Does this mean that from now on the 2.6.x kernel headers
can be installed and that Patrick's warning in:
/slackware-current/testing/packages/linux-2.6.15.3/kernel-headers.WARNING
should be removed?

Wim wrote:

> The latest glibc package is compiled against the 2.4.32 and 2.6.15.3
> kernel headers. Does this mean that from now on the 2.6.x kernel headers
> can be installed and that Patrick's warning in:
> /slackware-current/testing/packages/linux-2.6.15.3/kernel-headers.WARNING
> should be removed?

This package of 2.6.x based /usr/include/linux and /usr/include/asm headers
is being provided by request for some people who need it in order to compile
ASDL modem drivers for 2.6.x. As a general rule, installing kernel headers
that are newer than the kernel glibc was compiled with *may* cause problems,
so unless you need these for a particular reason it's best to stick with the
2.4.x kernel-headers package for now.

Note -- if you compile with NPTL then you might want to use these headers,
and glibc's NPTL was compiled using 2.6 headers, so all should be well.
In that case, specify using NPTL libs and headers with these compile
options:

-I/usr/include/nptl -L/usr/lib/nptl

Good luck!

-P.

Rintek

On 2006-02-10, Wim <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> The latest glibc package is compiled against the 2.4.32 and 2.6.15.3
> kernel headers. Does this mean that from now on the 2.6.x kernel headers
> can be installed and that Patrick's warning in:
> /slackware-current/testing/packages/linux-2.6.15.3/kernel-headers.WARNING
> should be removed?

I guess, but this is just my take, that 2.4.32 is used for linuxthreads
and 2.6.15.3 for NPTL glibc. If you compile applications on Slackware,
the will be compiled with and linked to the linuxthreads libraries. But
when such application is started it links to the NPTL libraries when
you have a newer Linux kernel than 2.6.4. As applications are compiled
with linuxthreads, nothing has changed. Keep the 2.4.x headers, and
don't overwrite them with 2.6.x headers.

BTW: I never understood where the obsession with 2.6 kernel headers
comes from. Virtually all applications compile perfectly against glibc
with 2.4 kernel headers, and I can not think of much gain compiling
applications against glibc with kernel 2.6 headers. Especially since
NTPL is used automatically on recent 2.6 kernels.

-- Daniel

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:13:14 +0100, Rintek wrote:

> Wim wrote:
>
>> The latest glibc package is compiled against the 2.4.32 and 2.6.15.3
>> kernel headers. Does this mean that from now on the 2.6.x kernel headers
>> can be installed and that Patrick's warning in:
>> /slackware-current/testing/packages/linux-2.6.15.3/kernel-headers.WARNING
>> should be removed?
>
> This package of 2.6.x based /usr/include/linux and /usr/include/asm headers
> is being provided by request for some people who need it in order to compile
> ASDL modem drivers for 2.6.x. As a general rule, installing kernel headers
> that are newer than the kernel glibc was compiled with *may* cause problems,
> so unless you need these for a particular reason it's best to stick with the
> 2.4.x kernel-headers package for now.
>
> Note -- if you compile with NPTL then you might want to use these headers,
> and glibc's NPTL was compiled using 2.6 headers, so all should be well.
> In that case, specify using NPTL libs and headers with these compile
> options:
>
> -I/usr/include/nptl -L/usr/lib/nptl
>
> Good luck!
>
> -P.
>
> Rintek
this is chinese to me really but i want to learn ...
headers mmmmm















whats that? .h files?

Daniel de Kok wrote:

> I guess, but this is just my take, that 2.4.32 is used for linuxthreads
> and 2.6.15.3 for NPTL glibc. If you compile applications on Slackware, the
> will be compiled with and linked to the linuxthreads libraries. But when
> such application is started it links to the NPTL libraries when you have a
> newer Linux kernel than 2.6.4. As applications are compiled with
> linuxthreads, nothing has changed. Keep the 2.4.x headers, and don't
> overwrite them with 2.6.x headers.

Ok, that sounds logical. I'll keep the 2.4 headers. Thanks for your advise.

Wim