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

Tushar Teredesai tushar at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Jan 28 02:03:10 PST 2003


Ian Molton wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 07:08:34 +0000 (UTC)
>tushar at linuxfromscratch.org (Tushar Teredesai) wrote:
>  
>
>>In some systems /usr/include/linux and /usr/include/asm are symlinks
>>to the corresponding dirs in /usr/src/linux
>>    
>>
>/usr/src/linux/include, actually. anyway:
>
Sorry typo.

>This is WRONG WRONG WRONG. any system set up like this is broken.
>
Nope. Its not. The important thing is that the headers that are 
accessible via /usr/include/linux and /usr/include/asm should *always* 
be the ones that glibc is compiled against. It doesn't matter whether 
/usr/include/linux is a directory or a symlink to somewhere else (say 
/usr/src/linux or /opt/kernel-sources).

>>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 *package* is broken? I think not. The distro is broken.
>  
>
The package is definitely broken. Given the fact that the kernel 
developers have given a nearly failsafe mechanism for finding the 
relevant kernel source, why should a package pick a location that _may_ 
not be correct. It is ok to use /usr/src/linux as a fallback mechanism 
(in case the build symlink is invalid) but not as the default.

-- 
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