Specify kernel tarball on Linux Headers page

[chris@…]

About once a week, someone in the IRC room asks what package should be used for the "Linux 2.6.xx.x API Headers" page. Yes, the page title (at least the first half) is the same as the tarball name (just like all other packages) and yes, the page does mention using headers from the kernel source. However, there does still appear to be a bit of room for confusion. I think the page should explicitly state that the Linux kernel source is what should be used there, probably right after the first descriptive paragraph ("The Linux kernel needs to expose an (API) for the system's C library...").

[bdubbs@…]

As the description of this ticket says, the title of the page says "5.6. Linux-2.6.34 API Headers"

Do we need to say "Use the Glibc-2.11.1 tarball" when building glibc?

If these users you are talking about don't infer that we are saying to use the linux tarball, what package do they think should be used?

If users can't figure this out, then they don't meet the requirements of vi. Prerequisites. "It is also expected that you have a reasonable knowledge of using and installing Linux software."

I suppose we should add that we expect a reasonable level of understanding of the English language, logic, and an ability to follow instructions.

I do not agree with this proposal.

[Matthew Burgess]

I'm in complete agreement with Bruce here. This seems to be hand-holding our uses a bit much. I don't think the users have to infer anything here. We explicitly say "This is done by way of sanitizing various C header files that are shipped in the Linux kernel source tarball". What other tarball could those users possibly think that sentence refers to?

[chris@…]

Generally, I would be the last person to suggest any additional user handholding, but I think it may be warranted here. Yes, the page does mention that it's for installing headers from the kernel tarball, but arguably that could also mean that the headers from the kernel tarball have been copied into some other package (which I believe is pretty much what used to be done when "linux-libc-headers" was used, and then later the "linux-headers" package that CLFS had for a while) - a number of users do look for some package with "api headers" in the name, then come and ask what's going on when they can't find it.

No, I don't think it's the same as specifying that the Glibc tarball must be used for installing Glibc, or anything else...the potential for confusion stems mainly from the fact that the page title doesn't match the tarball name.

Anyway, just stating my opinion...I won't try to push this any further, so just feel free to ignore me if you happen to disagree...