/usr/src/linux & /usr/src/linux-2.4.20 directories

Tushar Teredesai tushar at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Jan 27 23:08:08 PST 2003


Dagmar d'Surreal wrote:

>On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 19:40, Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>  
>
>>I don't have anything against the symlink, I have it on my system coz it 
>>is the most painless thing to do:) But the packages that require the 
>>source to be in /usr/src/linux are broken (just as the packages that 
>>need /usr/include/X11 -> /usr/X11R6/include/X11 symlink are).
>>    
>>
>What I want to know is how _specifically_ is this supposed to be
>broken?  So far, no one has bothered to cite any reasons. 
>  
>
In some systems /usr/include/linux and /usr/include/asm are symlinks to 
the corresponding dirs in /usr/src/linux tree (I think slackware is/was 
one of them, LFS is not one of them). On these systems, /usr/src/linux 
should not be touched since glibc is effectively compiled using the 
headers in /usr/src/linux. Hence when upgrading the kernel, the new 
kerenel should never be compiled in /usr/src/linux but in some other 
directory (e.g. /usr/src/linux-$NEW_KERNEL_VERSION).

Any package that would expect that the kernel sources to be in 
/usr/src/linux would end up compiling against kernel sources that do not 
match the running kernel but rather the kernel that glibc was compiled 
against. Hence the package is broken. The appropriate thing for the 
package to do is to access the kernel sources thru the build symlink.

Q.E.D.

-- 
Tushar Teredesai
   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/
   http://www.geocities.com/tushar/


-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list