On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 02:45:56PM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
I guess I *must* have one of those broken derivatives... and it doesn't work
for me without that step... Admittedly, this is mostly an issue between
2.2.xx and 2.4.0 - but I do have to remember to change it back between
whiles... a better way would be ?
Well...hmm, what doesn't work? You mean you can't build a kernel
unless you make /usr/src/linux point to the kernel source you're
building? This is odd, as I haven't done that...ever! In fact,
there's no directories in /usr/src on my machine.
I'm confused, as I've built many kernels on a redhat box here (intel,
but that shouldn't matter) without every updating the symlink, or
using /usr/src to build inside.
I tend to have very large amounts of kernel source laying around, and
I don't like to clutter my /usr partition with them...
--
Josh
6B21489A | GnuPG ID/Fingerprint | huber@mclx.com |
61F0 6138 BE7B FEBF A223 E9D1 BFE1 2065 6B21 489A
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Josh Huber wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 02:45:56PM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
quoted
I guess I *must* have one of those broken derivatives... and it doesn't work
for me without that step... Admittedly, this is mostly an issue between
2.2.xx and 2.4.0 - but I do have to remember to change it back between
whiles... a better way would be ?
Well...hmm, what doesn't work? You mean you can't build a kernel
unless you make /usr/src/linux point to the kernel source you're
building? This is odd, as I haven't done that...ever! In fact,
there's no directories in /usr/src on my machine.
IIRC, there was a time (long before 2.0) that kernel builds did look for
includes in /usr/include/, so you had to unpack (or symlink) your kernel in
/usr/src/linux/. Fortunately the include path was changed to put
root_of_build/include first.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Josh Huber wrote:
You don't have to put your kernel in /usr/src, and you DON'T have to
symlink /usr/src/linux to it before you build. The symlinks (on
broken RedHat derivatives) in /usr/include should point to the kernel
headers that your libc was built againt, otherwise you risk breaking
binary compatibility.
This is an argument I have heard several times, but I never understood:
If this risks breaking binary compatibility, then your kernel (compiled
with its own headers, after all) might not be binary compatible with
your glibc. Not nice.
quoted
On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 02:45:56PM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
quoted
I guess I *must* have one of those broken derivatives... and it doesn't work
for me without that step... Admittedly, this is mostly an issue between
2.2.xx and 2.4.0 - but I do have to remember to change it back between
whiles... a better way would be ?
Well...hmm, what doesn't work? You mean you can't build a kernel
unless you make /usr/src/linux point to the kernel source you're
building? This is odd, as I haven't done that...ever! In fact,
there's no directories in /usr/src on my machine.
IIRC, there was a time (long before 2.0) that kernel builds did look for
includes in /usr/include/, so you had to unpack (or symlink) your kernel in
/usr/src/linux/. Fortunately the include path was changed to put
root_of_build/include first.
There *are* situations where you need /usr/src/linux to point to your
current kernel sources. This is when you compile modules for the current
kernel, a prominent example being MOL.
--
Martin
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/