Re: Query about current practice of installing linux kernel header files

Re: Query about current practice of installing linux kernel header files

[vlse]

Sorry, I didn't received mail from Szabolcs Nagy to my inbox.

I am unable to understand the Makefile fully.

May you please correct me on this:

1) First musl include headers files are installed.
2) Then linux kernel header files are copied over.

Is this correct?

What about building busybox with musl-libc?
It needed few adapted headers of linux kernel as well as musl libc ones?

Veera
vlse
http://www.veera.biz

Re: Re: Query about current practice of installing linux kernel header files

[Szabolcs Nagy]

* vlse <vlse@veera.biz> [2017-01-06 20:11:18 +0530]:
> Sorry, I didn't received mail from Szabolcs Nagy to my inbox.

i forgot to cc you

> I am unable to understand the Makefile fully.
> 
> May you please correct me on this:
> 
> 1) First musl include headers files are installed.
> 2) Then linux kernel header files are copied over.
> 
> Is this correct?
> 

sorry i remembered incorrectly, the header install
order does not matter if you use staging + copy

(the problem is that the kernel install_headers
removes the include/scsi/ directory first which
contains libc headers so installing libc and
linux headers to the same place can break, but
if you copy the linux headers from a staging dir
then it works)

> What about building busybox with musl-libc?
> It needed few adapted headers of linux kernel as well as musl libc ones?

alpine linux applies the same kernel header patches that sabotage uses
http://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/aports/plain/main/linux-headers/

i think since
http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/commit/?id=04983f2272382af92eb8f8838964ff944fbb8258
there is an easier (more upstreamable) fix for the linux headers

but i'm not sure how much of busybox is affected