[Keystone Slip #38] What to do with kernel headers

Marc Heerdink marc_heerdink at softhome.net
Thu Mar 22 06:08:35 PST 2001

Gerard Beekmans wrote on Wed, 21 Mar 2001 21:35:45 -0500:
> > BTW, I have used the symlinks, too, until now. However I have just scared 
> > myself so that I will reconsider this, at least when changing to a new 
> > major version of the kernel. The symlinks should be fine if you're only 
> > upgrading a minor version of the kernel.
> I'm not a programmer to be able to decide whether Matthias' email has merit. 
> But I am very inclined to believe him and act accordingly...anybody who would 
> agree?

I agree with the quote from Matthias' e-mail that I pasted above. Symlinks are
fine, but when there's a major upgrade of the kernel (2.4 -> 2.6), the symlinks
should be replaced by the files of the original kernel used to build glibc. But
the 2.6 kernels are so long ahead, that I woudn't bother about it yet. It's a
good idea to rebuild glibc with a new kernel major anyway. I vote for keeping
the symlinks.

There is no programming language, no matter how structured,
that will prevent programmers from writing bad programs.
- L. Flon

Marc Heerdink
marc_heerdink at softhome.net

More information about the lfs-book mailing list