On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 01:15:01AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Sat, Aug 31, 2024 at 4:54 AM Nicolas Schier <nicolas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 12:54:50AM +0200 Daniel Gomez wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 05:46:03PM +0200, Nicolas Schier wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 04:18:54PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 02:13:57PM +0000, Daniel Gomez wrote: > > > > > > > Also, as this is not internal for the kernel, but rather for userspace > > > > > > > builds, shouldn't the include/ path be different? > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you suggest an alternative path or provide documentation that could help > > > > > > identify the correct location? Perhaps usr/include? > > > > > > > > > > That is better than the generic include path as you are attempting to > > > > > mix userspace and kernel headers in the same directory :( > > > > > > > > Please keep in mind, that usr/include/ currently does not hold a single > > > > header file but is used for dynamically composing the UAPI header tree. > > > > > > > > In general, I do not like the idea of keeping a elf.h file here that > > > > possibly is out-of-sync with the actual system's version (even though > > > > elf.h should not see that much changes). Might it be more helpful to > > > > provide a "development kit" for Linux devs that need to build on MacOS > > > > that provides necessary missing system header files, instead of merging > > > > those into upstream? > > > > > > I took this suggestion and tried pushing a Homebrew formula/package here [1]. > > > I think I chose a wrong name and maybe something like "development kit" would > > > have been better. However, would it be possible instead to include the *.rb file > > > in the scripts/ directory? So users of this can generate the development kit in > > > their environments. I would maintain the script to keep it in sync with the > > > required glibc version for the latest kernel version. > > > > > > [1] https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=96027706-f7896236-9603fc49-000babffaa23-452f645d7a72e234&q=1&e=343dd31c-5e5b-4b09-8ee5-6c59a1ff826e&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FHomebrew%2Fhomebrew-core%2Fpull%2F181885 > > > > I think it sounds sensible to hold that formula file in the upstream tree. But > > I am not sure if scripts/ is the best location. > > > > Masahiro, what do you think? > > > I do not know much about the homebrew, but why does the upstream > kernel need to merge such masOS stuff? The missing headers (in macOS) need to be provided somehow. One way can be having the formula (*.rb file) in-tree, so users of this can install them in their systems. This would also require to have a tarball with the missing headers either in-tree or somewhere accessible so it can be fetched. To avoid having the formula and a tarball in-tree, I've created a Homebrew Tap (3rd-Party Repository) called 'Bee Headers Project' [1][2][3] that can provision the missing headers. The project provides a bee-headers package and formula that will install byteswap.h, elf.h and endian.h in the user's system Hombrew directory. It also provides a *.pc file so pkg-config can be used to find the location of these headers. I have a v2 with this solution ready, perhaps is easier to discuss this with the code. I think we can extend the same package and include extra headers if we need more in the future. I see for x86_64 asm/types.h and others might be required. The bee-headers package can then be the repository to place and distribute them. Please, let me know if you think of an alternative solution, I can give a try and explore. [1] Project: https://github.com/bee-headers [2] Headers repository: https://github.com/bee-headers/headers.git [3] Homebrew Tap formula: https://github.com/bee-headers/homebrew-bee-headers.git > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > Nicolas > > > > -- > Best Regards > Masahiro Yamada
