[oe] [RFC] scsi headers, in glibc-dev or linux-libc-headers-dev?

[Koen Kooi]

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

On 27-04-10 20:21, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 12:14 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Currently conflicting headers are both in glibc-dev and
>> linux-libc-headers-dev, which isn't a good thing. According to the
>> interwebs we should use the linux-libc-headers version.
>>
>> Anyone opposed to removing the scsi headers from glibc? It would
>> basically involve reverting
>> http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/commit/?id=b8bb2a62b3916470c752bd79d31322b4358fc676
>> and
>> http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/commit/?id=83f41716ab6a2a9d83d4ff044dcef00595ecfeb2
> 
> So, I did both of those after checking the interwebs and poking some
> kernel folks (see comments in
> http://bugs.openembedded.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4262 ).  The question is,
> did the kernel folks change their mind again

I would guess so, since l-l-h 2.6.32 still has the headers....

> and we need to either drop
> older linux-libc-headers (which I'll just assume is a no-go) or go back
> to removing them in new enough linux-libc-headers.

I have no real preference, but removing them from l-l-h would be the
easiest option. My immediate problem is that I need to be able to
install both glibc-dev and l-l-h-dev on the target to show off native
qt4 compilation.

regards,

Koen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFL1zSaMkyGM64RGpERAnFdAJ40UWtXamdRU8oTLd9ILE1BdeApuwCeJo3M
4Cg9iYa3MeFktzS1H4hP+A0=
=x1El
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----