LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Latest LQ Deals
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-10-2010, 07:08 PM   #16
damgar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: dallas, tx
Distribution: Slackware - current multilib/gsb Arch
Posts: 1,949
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 203Reputation: 203Reputation: 203

From alien-bob's kernel-how-to:
Quote:
Slackware kernel-headers package

You are going to build and use a new kernel. You may wonder what you need to do with the Slackware kernel-headers package.
The answer is: do not remove this package!

There are two places where you will find kernel headers; one place is inside the kernel source directory (in our case, the /usr/src/linux-2.6.27.7 directory) and the other place is /usr/include/linux. The kernel-headers package usually contains the headers taken from the source of the default Slackware kernel. These particular headers are used when the glibc package is built. The fact that the kernel-headers package installs these files to /usr/include/linux makes them independent of the header files you find in the kernel source directory.

As long as you do not upgrade your glibc package, you should not upgrade or remove the kernel-headers package.
It can be inferred from this that the answer is no, you do not have to upgrade glibc when the kernel is updated, rather, you ONLY have to update the kernel headers when you update glibc.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-10-2010, 07:17 PM   #17
GazL
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 6,882

Rep: Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988
Indeed. I think what confuses people is that Pat releases new kernel-header packages with each updated kernel in the patches directory, which is a direct contradiction of that explanation. However, I suspect that these packages have the same contents as the previous one and are just a name change to keep the numbers in sync. But I've never tested this theory by unpacking them and comparing them to each-other, so I might be barking up completely the wrong tree here.
 
Old 02-11-2010, 03:02 AM   #18
samac
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Kirkwall, Orkney
Distribution: Linux Mint 20.3 - Cinnamon
Posts: 1,425

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 139Reputation: 139
Thank you GazL. You have got the point that I am making. I am not building a custom kernel, I am following the Slackware64-current release. I have read Alien Bob's explanations, and as you say
Quote:
which is a direct contradiction of that explanation
this appears to be the case. I also suspect that they are the same, but I would like to have some sort of definitive answer.

What kernel-headers were used to compile the latest glibc in current?
What kernel-headers are to be used on a running current system?
Why are the headers updated at the same time as a kernel bump if you should not change the kernel-headers?

Sorry to be pedantic but I am!

samac
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-11-2010, 03:51 AM   #19
bgeddy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2006
Location: Liverpool - England
Distribution: slackware64 13.37 and -current, Dragonfly BSD
Posts: 1,810

Rep: Reputation: 232Reputation: 232Reputation: 232
Yes, I too can see your basis for confusion. I must admit it is a little odd. I have compared the versions of kernel headers that come with Slackware64 13. There are two kernel versions supplied being 2.6.29.6 and 2.6.30.5 in /testing. The kernel headers supplied differ with these two (both in number of included files and the actual size of these files). I have not looked to see what the actual differences are, perhaps nothing untoward that would make the versions incompatible. However - obviously there is only the one version of glibc supplied. So which version of the headers was it built against ?
Hmm - now I am confused. I always thought the golden rule was to keep the headers that glibc had been built against but here we appear to have one glibc and two versions of headers ! Hopefully someone more versed with the intricacies of kernels, their headers and glibc can comment on this.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 02-11-2010, 06:39 AM   #20
gnashley
Amigo developer
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,928

Rep: Reputation: 612Reputation: 612Reputation: 612Reputation: 612Reputation: 612Reputation: 612
BrZ, there are several headers from the kernel which conflict with headers installed by glibc or other packages like drm. In the case of scsi.h, the one from glibc should be used. Likewise, the headers for drm should be taken from the drm sources and not the ones from the kernel-headers -although now drm is using the headers from the latest kernel -but these may not be the same as what is installed with your kernel-headers package.
As for what's going on with current, it may just be that an entry didn't get written into the ChangeLog or not in the right order -but I wouldn't be sure of that. The trouble is that glibc won't tell you what versiuon of headers were used. Normally, Pat upgrades the headers and then re-compiles glibc against them as is proper, but maybe there is some delay this time for some reason. What I find more perplexing is that the slackware kernel-headers are not sanitized headers -at least as far as I can see. The headers appear to be the complete and raw headers from the kernel sources which is supposed to be a Bad Thing ever since kernel-2.6 was introduced. However, the normal method for creating sanitized headers is also not perfect -I find that some essential headers are missed when using the 'make headers_install' rule. My guess is that Pat avoids the trouble of discovering which headers are missing and correcting the problem, by simply including *all* the headers in the kernel-headers package. There never has been a SlackBuild for the kernel-headers package, so we don't really know how Pat creates them.
 
Old 02-11-2010, 07:20 AM   #21
BrZ
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2009
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 543

Rep: Reputation: 121Reputation: 121
@gnashley

Thanks.
 
Old 02-11-2010, 08:56 AM   #22
grissiom
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: China, Beijing
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 423

Rep: Reputation: 45
Yes, it's strange that there is no "kernel-headers.SlackBuild"...
 
Old 02-11-2010, 05:41 PM   #23
jong357
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: Columbus, OH
Distribution: DIYSlackware
Posts: 1,914

Rep: Reputation: 52
Quote:
As long as you do not upgrade your glibc package, you should not upgrade or remove the kernel-headers package.
So why does Pat keep building new kernel-header packages then? ;-)

I've never understood it. It just promotes misunderstanding and people constantly update their kernel headers because they don't know any better.

Just my 2 cents anyway. When pushing out new source, kernel and module packages, there shouldn't be an accompanying headers package. There's just no need for it what-so-ever....

Last edited by jong357; 02-11-2010 at 05:42 PM.
 
Old 02-12-2010, 02:33 AM   #24
samac
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Kirkwall, Orkney
Distribution: Linux Mint 20.3 - Cinnamon
Posts: 1,425

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 139Reputation: 139
As is suggested by the documentation we should all be running the version of the kernel headers that glibc was compiled against. Perhaps a Slackware could give a definitive answer to the questions.

Quote:
What kernel-headers were used to compile the latest glibc in current?
What kernel-headers are to be used on a running current system?
This would then put all our collective minds at ease. Perhaps it would also be good to remove the uncertainty by only updating the kernel headers when glibc is compiled against different set of headers.

OR is there something we are missing?

samac
 
Old 02-12-2010, 02:59 AM   #25
gnashley
Amigo developer
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,928

Rep: Reputation: 612Reputation: 612Reputation: 612Reputation: 612Reputation: 612Reputation: 612
Unless you turn around and re-compile glibc which he usually does. But, that should imply re-compiling everything in the distro -which we know never happens -hence those pesky little errors that crop up much later or anytime a user thinks they can re-compile anything/everything in the distro at any point in time. Luckily, the 64bit branch exposes many problems which would otherwise go undetected for a longer time.
 
Old 02-12-2010, 03:18 AM   #26
samac
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Kirkwall, Orkney
Distribution: Linux Mint 20.3 - Cinnamon
Posts: 1,425

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 139Reputation: 139
So should Slackware get an overhaul, so it is freshly compiled, just as Slackware64 has been. In fact should Slackware be completely re-compiled for each new tool-chain/release? This should actually improve Slackware and make it even better than it already is.

samac
 
Old 02-12-2010, 06:21 AM   #27
GazL
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 6,882

Rep: Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnashley View Post
Unless you turn around and re-compile glibc which he usually does.
In current yes, but Pat also seems to provide new header packages in the stable/patches directory when the kernel is updated for security reasons and I think it's this that has everyone confused.
 
Old 02-12-2010, 07:54 AM   #28
damgar
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: dallas, tx
Distribution: Slackware - current multilib/gsb Arch
Posts: 1,949
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 203Reputation: 203Reputation: 203
Am I the only one that thinks maybe slackware is TOO STABLE? I mean if we had some good show stopping bugs would this thread have made it to two pages?
 
Old 02-12-2010, 08:31 AM   #29
GazL
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 6,882

Rep: Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988Reputation: 4988
Quote:
Originally Posted by damgar View Post
Am I the only one that thinks maybe slackware is TOO STABLE? I mean if we had some good show stopping bugs would this thread have made it to two pages?
If there's anything that signifies a slackware user then it's that they like to understand how their system works. Not understanding something as fundamental and important as what goes into the system headers is bound to be an itch that wants scratching.


Someone posted the other day that notify-send (libnotify) wasn't working, and didn't get a whole lot of help. That was show-stopping for them and resulted in them returning to Ubuntu because of it. There was also that unexplained memmove() pointer corruption/segfault in ash I was investigating last week, though as no one uses ash interactively, I can understand the lack of interest in that one. Slackware has its bugs just like any other distro. It's just that most of us never encounter them.
 
Old 02-12-2010, 11:35 AM   #30
gnashley
Amigo developer
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,928

Rep: Reputation: 612Reputation: 612Reputation: 612Reputation: 612Reputation: 612Reputation: 612
Try re-compiling each and every package at any point in time and you are liable to trun up lots of compile-time problems. runtime is another thing. GazL, did you ever come up with a definitive fix for ash?
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
kernel panic after update to -current Intel_ Slackware 14 05-02-2010 11:32 PM
canīt boot updated kernel slackware current jcamez Slackware 19 01-10-2010 08:20 AM
Kernel, GLIBC update, no Alsa! But I can get sound. swinchen Slackware 3 10-28-2004 01:52 AM
kernel-update, a success... BUT... couldn't boot from the updated-kernel Pisces107 Red Hat 7 12-17-2003 02:27 PM
updated kernel from mandrake update? paradoxni Mandriva 1 10-31-2003 02:51 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:06 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration