Kernel headers changes in F10?

[John W. Linville]

On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 09:47:25AM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 07:45:07PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > John W. Linville wrote:
> > >On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 07:13:27PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > >>John W. Linville wrote:
> 
> > >>>Almost certainly because of this commit:
> > >>>
> > >>>commit 2218228392080f0ca2fc2974604e79f57b12c436
> > >>>Author: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill at shutemov.name>
> > >>>Date:   Tue Apr 22 16:38:55 2008 +0300
> > >>>
> > >>>   Make linux/wireless.h be able to compile
> > >>>
> > >>>   Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill at shutemov.name>
> > >>>   Signed-off-by: John W. Linville <linville at tuxdriver.com>
> > >>>
> > >>>I may have let this slip by due to the "able to compile" bit --
> > >>>should I not have merged it?  I don't have a record or recollection
> > >>>of what motivated the patch originally.
> 
> > >As I said, I have no record or memory of why this patch was needed.
> > >It looks like it was a mistake for me to let it though in the first
> > >place.  My guess is that he wanted to include linux/wireless.h from
> > >userland without including other kernel headers...?
> > 
> > Looks like a good candidate for reverting. I see little arguments to keep 
> > this patch in, it will probably break compilation of other users of 
> > linux/wireless.h too, as those probably also already include <net/if.h> to 
> > get the necessary stuff from there.
> 
> I have reverted that patch in rawhide, and I'm working with Kirill
> for a more permanent solution.

FWIW, Dave M. NAKed the partial-revert attempt upstream.  Can the
userland packages cope?

John
-- 
John W. Linville
linville at redhat.com