[ntp:questions] Attn Linux distributors - pse include PPS

Jochen Bern Jochen.Bern at LINworks.de
Sun Apr 27 12:05:58 UTC 2014

On -10.01.-28163 20:59, Rob wrote:
> Apparently there is unresolved discussion whether a .h describing a
> PPS API belongs in the set of kernel include files or in a separate
> package.

There is? Can't say I've ever dealt with PPS, but *if* this .h provides
the necessary information that *several* pieces of userland software
need to use a kernel API, with the details/version of that API tied to
the underlying kernel version and nothing else, then there should be
only three kinds of package suitable to provide that .h:
a) the kernel itself (i.e., always present),
b) the package providing the kernel module providing the API (*if* made
   into a module for the distributed kernel), or
c) a hypothetical "devel" package that provides the .h, but *not* some
   set of userland utilities on top unless they're strictly necessary
   (e.g., to "configure" the API in some way before it can be used).

Of course, if there's some history of this API's development that needs
to be taken into account for compatibility reasons, things can get ...
complicated. There's no such thing as 'if [ -f foo.h ]; then #include
<foo.h> ; else #include "my_foo.h"' (post-./configure) ...

> But the separate package pps-tools which includes this file already
> exists.

I wonder whether we can take the package description:
as an actual declaration of *intent* from Debian to keep the .h there.

> I don't understand why this is a problem that can be fixed in a minute.
> There must be TENS of packages that have to be installed on the build
> machine to successfully build the binaries in the distribution.
> Compilers, linkers, packaging tools, libraries, etc etc etc.
> Can't they add just one simple package to that?

Well *there* you're confusing the software installed on it *to make it a
build machine* and the packages installed so as to *get built*. Imagine
cross-compiling being involved and you'll see how one needs to be kept
separate from the other.

I'd imagine that the folks dealing with embedded devices would have a
couple choice words about forcing the entire pps-tools into *every*
installation just so as to make the PPSAPI available, maybe even the IT
security people (particularly if there's set[ug]id involved with them).

								J. Bern
*NEU* - NEC IT-Infrastruktur-Produkte im <http://www.linworks-shop.de/>:
Server--Storage--Virtualisierung--Management SW--Passion for Performance
Jochen Bern, Systemingenieur --- LINworks GmbH <http://www.LINworks.de/>
Postfach 100121, 64201 Darmstadt | Robert-Koch-Str. 9, 64331 Weiterstadt
PGP (1024D/4096g) FP = D18B 41B1 16C0 11BA 7F8C DCF7 E1D5 FAF4 444E 1C27
Tel. +49 6151 9067-231, Zentr. -0, Fax -299 - Amtsg. Darmstadt HRB 85202
Unternehmenssitz Weiterstadt, Geschäftsführer Metin Dogan, Oliver Michel

More information about the questions mailing list