1 |
begin quote |
2 |
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:07:26 -0700 |
3 |
"C. Brewer" <cbrewer@×××××××××××××.net> wrote: |
4 |
|
5 |
> |
6 |
|
7 |
> > Curently my counterproposal is to actually have the usr/src/linux |
8 |
> > symlink directed at the target kernel, and if that link isn't found, |
9 |
> > assume that we want the running kernel instead, and repoint it at |
10 |
> > lib/modules/`uname -r`/build |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > Just because usr/src/linux is a symlink in our case, why is that |
13 |
> > worse |
14 |
> > than following and relying on the /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build |
15 |
> > symlink? The name? if that's the case, we could well make the |
16 |
> > symlink named "Target" and instead just confuse people more. |
17 |
> |
18 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
> Okay, but your counterproposal would be flawed as well, because as you |
21 |
> pointed out, you don't always keep your sources, and without those |
22 |
> /usr/src/linux will point to nothing, as well as the |
23 |
> /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build link. So what happens when those both |
24 |
> fail? Do we fake a dir in /usr/src, so at leats one link works? |
25 |
|
26 |
Considering that if you don't have a target for the modules, you don't |
27 |
have source for it, it is bound to fail, so that is a non issue in |
28 |
either case. However, assuming that running kernel == target kernel is |
29 |
a flawed idea and principle, as said, machines may not even boot without |
30 |
adding said modules. |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
> > Yes, I'm of the old school , I -assume- that people who suggest a |
36 |
> > way |
37 |
> > of doing things, also have tried it themselves, or are capable of |
38 |
> > implementing it. When you don't have that situation, you get |
39 |
> > "Designed |
40 |
> > by Commite" solutions that may sound good, but are in fact |
41 |
> > unworkable. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> But in order to try this myself (if I was capable), I would need to |
44 |
> atleast account for quite a few pieces of equipment that I don't |
45 |
> currently own in order to support all posible scenarios, of which I |
46 |
> couldn't afford to do, nor find storage for. In order to cover the |
47 |
> most possible cases, we need "Design by Committe" with the people |
48 |
> using this equipment. |
49 |
|
50 |
Why? You don't need to own n(n) types of hardware to presume that |
51 |
drivers built to a kernel may need to be avaiable in order for boot. |
52 |
Thats a fairly safe presumption for many (pcmcia drivers is a great |
53 |
example here), and testing to make sure that the idea is safe is merely |
54 |
about thinking, not even testing to build. |
55 |
|
56 |
|
57 |
However, my argument still stands, running kernel should not be the same |
58 |
as target kernel in any case. No matter how you solve the situation you |
59 |
will need a target kernel , even if target == uname -r. |
60 |
|
61 |
This cuts it down to how to select where the target is, and for this, a |
62 |
symlink is a very simple way of standardizing it that requires less |
63 |
cutting into how building works. |
64 |
|
65 |
|
66 |
//Spider |
67 |
|
68 |
|
69 |
-- |
70 |
begin .signature |
71 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
72 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
73 |
end |