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

Ian Molton spyro at f2s.com
Tue Jan 28 02:24:42 PST 2003

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:03:36 +0000 (UTC)
tushar at linuxfromscratch.org (Tushar Teredesai) wrote:

> >/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.

Ok, its not actually illegal, but it should be. NOONE should be doing
this anymore.
> >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,

Whats that then?

> why should a package pick a location that
> _may_ not be correct.

/usr/src/linux is, and has been for a long time now, supposed to be a
symlink to the current kernel sources.

> It is ok to use /usr/src/linux as a fallback
> mechanism (in case the build symlink is invalid) but not as the
> default.

I disagree.
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