[OE-core] [PATCH] linux-libc-headers: Add big warning about antisocial behaviour

[Khem Raj]

On Friday, September 13, 2013, Richard Purdie wrote:

> I'm getting concerned with the number of people forking this recipe
> and not understanding what they're doing. I'm therefore proposing
> adding in a suitable warning to people thinking of copying it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org<javascript:;>
> >
> ---
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers.inc
> b/meta/recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers.inc
> index 96fe2ff..79b7dc4 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers.inc
> +++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers.inc
> @@ -2,6 +2,28 @@ DESCRIPTION = "Sanitized set of kernel headers for the C
> library's use."
>  SECTION = "devel"
>  LICENSE = "GPLv2"
>
> +#########################################################################
> +####                        PLEASE READ
> +#########################################################################
> +#
> +# You're probably looking here thinking you need to create some new copy
> +# of linux-libc-headers since you have your own custom kernel. To put
> +# this simply, you DO NOT.
> +#
> +# Why? These headers are used to build the libc. If you customise the
> +# headers you are customising the libc and the libc becomes machine
> +# specific. Most people do not add custom libc extensions to the kernel
> +# and have a machine specific libc.
> +#
> +# But you have some kernel headers you need for some driver? That is fine
> +# but get them from STAGING_KERNEL_DIR where the kernel installs itself.
> +# This will make the package using them machine specific but this is much
> +# better than having a maching specific C library. This does mean your
> +# recipe needs a DEPENDS += "virtual/kernel" but again, that is fine and
> +# makes total sense.
> +#
> +# -- RP


There are cases where we have bsps with 2.6.3x kernels and libc compiled
against 3.10 assumes syscalls
Which the kernel will not provide. These kinds are genuine cases for
creating equivalent recipes
You should mention the valid case too in this notice and basically asses
the user is knowing what. He is doing

+
>  LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=d7810fab7487fb0aad327b76f1be7cd7"
>
>  python __anonymous () {
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org <javascript:;>
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20130913/969ccfd7/attachment-0002.html>