| 1 |
On Tuesday 16 September 2003 23:32, Ni[o wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ma question est simple, pourquoi il me propose de mettre à jour le |
| 3 |
> linux-headers du 2.4.19 alors que je tourne en 2.4.20 ?? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
parce qu'il s'agit des en-têtes qui ont servi à compiler la glibc, et qu'il |
| 6 |
vaut mieux avoir des en-têtes en accord avec les bibliothèques. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Voilà l'explication par Linus Torvalds lui même : |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I would suggest that people who compile new kernels should: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
- not have a single symbolic link in sight (except the one that the |
| 13 |
kernel build itself sets up, namely the "linux/include/asm" symlink |
| 14 |
that is only used for the internal kernel compile itself) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
And yes, this is what I do. My /usr/src/linux still has the old 2.2.13 |
| 17 |
header files, even though I haven't run a 2.2.13 kernel in a _loong_ |
| 18 |
time. But those headers were what glibc was compiled against, so those |
| 19 |
headers are what matches the library object files. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
And this is actually what has been the suggested environment for at |
| 22 |
least the last five years. I don't know why the symlink business keeps |
| 23 |
on living on, like a bad zombie. Pretty much every distribution still |
| 24 |
has that broken symlink, and people still remember that the linux |
| 25 |
sources should go into "/usr/src/linux" even though that hasn't been |
| 26 |
true in a _loong_ time. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Richard |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-user-fr@g.o mailing list |
Archives