| 1 |
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:49:12 +0200 |
| 2 |
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > msoulier@anton:~$ equery belongs /usr/include/linux/quota.h |
| 4 |
> > [ Searching for file(s) /usr/include/linux/quota.h in *... ] |
| 5 |
> > sys-kernel/linux-headers-2.6.23-r3 (/usr/include/linux/quota.h) |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > ulier@anton:~$ uname -a |
| 8 |
> > Linux anton 2.6.25-gentoo-r8 #9 Sun Nov 23 19:14:08 EST 2008 i686 AMD |
| 9 |
> > Athlon(tm) XP 1700+ AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > So slightly off but compatible. At some point a newer glibc would simply |
| 12 |
> > fail to build if it's incompatible then, I assume? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> It is as close to guaranteed to build as you are ever going to get. The public |
| 15 |
> interface to the kernel via it's headers simply does not change in |
| 16 |
> incompatible ways. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> But if it ever did, then yes, glibc would fail to build |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
This was a doubt of mine. One of the reasons I prefer to use a stable |
| 21 |
kernel is that I don't know if, when using a newer (and ~x86) kernel, |
| 22 |
I should also use the corresponding linux-headers version. So you say |
| 23 |
I can be 99.999% sure that, should I update my kernel (say, to 2.6.28) |
| 24 |
and meet problems, those will be intrinsic to this kernel version |
| 25 |
(and possibly to incompatibilities with things like out-of-tree |
| 26 |
kernel modules), but never because the kernel headers are outdated? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
IOW, the only real problem of using outdated kernel headers is not |
| 29 |
fully taking advantage of new features? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I prefer to use stable software anyway, but it is important to know. |
Archives