Re: Recent changes to sysctl.h breaks glibc

[H. Peter Anvin]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> ABI changes or ABI additions?
> 
> If the ABI is not fixed that is a bug.  Admittedly some interfaces
> in the development kernel are still under development and so have not
> stabilized on an ABI but that is a different issue.
> 

ABI fixes and ABI additions, as well as outright ABI changes (yes they
suck, but they happen.)
> 
>>ABI headers is the only realistic solution.  We
>>can't realistically get real ABI headers for 2.5, so please don't just
>>break things randomly until then.
> 
> As the ABI remains fixed I remain unconvinced.  Multiple implementations
> against the same ABI should be possible.  The real question which is the
> more scalable way to do the code.

The ABI doesn't remain fixed.  Like everything else it evolves.

> What I find truly puzzling is that after years glibc still needs
> kernel headers at all.

What I find truly puzzling is that obviously intelligent people like
yourself still seem to think that ABIs remain fixed.

	-hpa