* Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 08:00:41AM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 06:53 +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > What's the recommended fix for packages that cannot or will not use > > > libext2fs, like busybox? Copy the required parts into a private header > > > and use that instead? > > > > The normal way is to just keep a private copy of the whole header file. > > Because the on-disk format stays compatible, those programs do not have > > to update the header very often - only rarely if they want to support > > some new feature. > > Even if they're not iwlling to use libext2fs (for space reasons, I > would assume? It can't be because of license compatibility issues > since they are both GPLv2), they could just simply grab the ext2_fs.h > from e2fsprogs. That has all of the file system definitions for ext2, > ext3, and ext4. In fact there is already a file, e2fs_defs.h, that seems to be based on the contents of the ext2_fs.h from the kernel. I've posted two patches to the busybox mailing list that fix the build without using linux/ext2_fs.h. For reference, they can be found here: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2012-March/077563.html http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2012-March/077562.html Do you still want me to prepare a patch to unexport ext2_fs.h or will you take care of it? Thierry
Attachment:
pgp7arwLMvWcH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
