[PATCH 08/12] include: add elf.h support

[Nicolas Schier]

On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 12:54:50AM +0200 Daniel Gomez wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 05:46:03PM +0200, Nicolas Schier wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 04:18:54PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 02:13:57PM +0000, Daniel Gomez wrote:
> > > > > Also, as this is not internal for the kernel, but rather for userspace
> > > > > builds, shouldn't the include/ path be different?
> > > > 
> > > > Can you suggest an alternative path or provide documentation that could help
> > > > identify the correct location? Perhaps usr/include?
> > > 
> > > That is better than the generic include path as you are attempting to
> > > mix userspace and kernel headers in the same directory :(
> > 
> > Please keep in mind, that usr/include/ currently does not hold a single
> > header file but is used for dynamically composing the UAPI header tree.
> > 
> > In general, I do not like the idea of keeping a elf.h file here that
> > possibly is out-of-sync with the actual system's version (even though
> > elf.h should not see that much changes).  Might it be more helpful to
> > provide a "development kit" for Linux devs that need to build on MacOS
> > that provides necessary missing system header files, instead of merging
> > those into upstream?
> 
> I took this suggestion and tried pushing a Homebrew formula/package here [1].
> I think I chose a wrong name and maybe something like "development kit" would
> have been better. However, would it be possible instead to include the *.rb file
> in the scripts/ directory? So users of this can generate the development kit in
> their environments. I would maintain the script to keep it in sync with the
> required glibc version for the latest kernel version.
> 
> [1] https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/pull/181885

I think it sounds sensible to hold that formula file in the upstream tree.  But
I am not sure if scripts/ is the best location.

Masahiro, what do you think?

Kind regards,
Nicolas