Kernel 2.5.5x (have not tried earlier) and 2.5.60 's scsi/scsi.h do
not have like in 2.4 the 'include <features.h>', or as it may seem
to need an 'include <types.h>', and thus cdrtools for one do not
compile.
The take I get on this from Jorg is that he feels its a problem
kernel side. Comments ?
Attached is a patch that get cdrtools-2.01a2 to compile.
Regards,
--
Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Cape Town, South Africa
- PLEASE NOTE -
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager. Please note that any views or opinions presented
in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of Sahara Distribution (Pty) Ltd. Finally, while Sahara
Distribution attempts to ensure that all email is virus-free, Sahara
Distribution accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this email.
Sahara Distribution (PTY) Ltd
Unit G5-G12, Centurion Business Park, Milnerton, Cape Town, South Africa
Private Bag X180, Halfway House, 1685, South Africa
Scanned and protected by Sistech Viruswall 2.3
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Sahara Workshop wrote:
>
> Kernel 2.5.5x (have not tried earlier) and 2.5.60 's scsi/scsi.h do
> not have like in 2.4 the 'include <features.h>', or as it may seem
> to need an 'include <types.h>', and thus cdrtools for one do not
> compile.
>
> The take I get on this from Jorg is that he feels its a problem
> kernel side. Comments ?
>
> Attached is a patch that get cdrtools-2.01a2 to compile.
Good heavens that's ugly, shouldn't you be using userland header files and
not the ones from 'Kernel du jour'? Is your /usr/include/linux pointing to
your current kernel? If that's the case.. don't do that.
What were Joerg's justifications again?
Zwane
Aside: Are Sahara shipping computers with bleeding edge Linux
configurations? ;)
--
function.linuxpower.ca
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:48:06AM +0200, Sahara Workshop wrote:
>
> Kernel 2.5.5x (have not tried earlier) and 2.5.60 's scsi/scsi.h do
> not have like in 2.4 the 'include <features.h>', or as it may seem
> to need an 'include <types.h>', and thus cdrtools for one do not
> compile.
>
> The take I get on this from Jorg is that he feels its a problem
> kernel side. Comments ?
The problem is in cdrtools. It should not include kernel headers.
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the system manager. Please note that any views or opinions presented
> in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of Sahara Distribution (Pty) Ltd. Finally, while Sahara
> Distribution attempts to ensure that all email is virus-free, Sahara
> Distribution accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
> transmitted by this email.
Blah. You sent this mail to a public list so this statement is void.
On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 07:58, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > The take I get on this from Jorg is that he feels its a problem
> > kernel side. Comments ?
>
> The problem is in cdrtools. It should not include kernel headers.
>
Ok, so what should it include ?
>
> Blah. You sent this mail to a public list so this statement is void.
>
Yeah, yeah, just disregard. LKML is too high traffic for my home
56.6k dialup, so have to subscribe at work, and the stupid MTA/virus
scanner adds that by default.
Regards,
--
Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Cape Town, South Africa
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 08:07:31AM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > The problem is in cdrtools. It should not include kernel headers.
> >
>
> Ok, so what should it include ?
Glibc's <scsi/scsi.h>
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 08:27:50AM +0200, Sahara Workshop wrote:
> > Glibc's <scsi/scsi.h>
>
>
> If you looked at the patch, you would have seen that it
> does include 'scsi/scsi.h', but I'm guessing its changing the
> search order of includes then. Ill have a look.
Either your distributions setup is broken and overwrites
/usr/include/scsi/scsi.h (check whether it has the FSF copyright,
they took the kernel header verbatim and just slapped their copyright
boilerplate over it..) or cdrtools is broken enough to explicitly
add the kernel source to it's include dirs. Both would need fixing,
the first is easy, the second needs conviencing Joerg which might
become difficult :)
On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 08:21, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Glibc's <scsi/scsi.h>
If you looked at the patch, you would have seen that it
does include 'scsi/scsi.h', but I'm guessing its changing the
search order of includes then. Ill have a look.
--
Sahara Workshop <[email protected]>
- PLEASE NOTE -
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager. Please note that any views or opinions presented
in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of Sahara Distribution (Pty) Ltd. Finally, while Sahara
Distribution attempts to ensure that all email is virus-free, Sahara
Distribution accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
transmitted by this email.
Sahara Distribution (PTY) Ltd
Unit G5-G12, Centurion Business Park, Milnerton, Cape Town, South Africa
Private Bag X180, Halfway House, 1685, South Africa
Scanned and protected by Sistech Viruswall 2.3
On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 08:32, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Either your distributions setup is broken and overwrites
> /usr/include/scsi/scsi.h (check whether it has the FSF copyright,
> they took the kernel header verbatim and just slapped their copyright
> boilerplate over it..) or cdrtools is broken enough to explicitly
> add the kernel source to it's include dirs. Both would need fixing,
> the first is easy, the second needs conviencing Joerg which might
> become difficult :)
>
Thanks. Ill look into this, and also check with Joerg why it have to
use the current kernel headers if it is what its doing. I just
basically wanted the opinion of what should be the right way to handle
it before I submit a bug report to the correct people.
Are scsi stuff in 2.5 going to change drastically in the future ?
Regards,
--
Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team
Cape Town, South Africa