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://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/pull/181885 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? Kind regards, Nicolas
