Re: [PATCH] [arm64] including missing headers
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 00:13 -0300, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
>> Including missing arm header references from the arm64 headers:
>> asm/opcodes.h:#include <../../arm/include/asm/opcodes.h>
>> asm/xen/hypervisor.h:#include <../../arm/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h>
>> asm/xen/page.h:#include <../../arm/include/asm/xen/page.h>
>> asm/xen/page-coherent.h:#include <../../arm/include/asm/xen/page-coherent.h>
>> asm/xen/hypercall.h:#include <../../arm/include/asm/xen/hypercall.h>
>> asm/xen/interface.h:#include <../../arm/include/asm/xen/interface.h>
>
> Yuck. I don't really want to add a special case for this.
>
> I wonder whether it would make more sense to make linux-headers-
> <abiname>-common arch-independent, which I kind of wanted to do anyway.
> That would expand the installed size by about 35-60% depending on which
> architecture we compare with. What do you think?
That was the other possible solution I had as well, but since it would increase
the size quite considerably, I ended up just fixing the arm64 case.
I would be +1 for the arch-independent package, as it would help
avoiding similar issues in the future.
If the user got disk space for the headers (which is used for
development or dkms packages), I think it would be fine to make it a
bit bigger.
Cheers,
--
Ricardo Salveti
Reply to: