| 1 |
On Tuesday 21 October 2003 1:15, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> So you move the sources from /usr/src/ to /opt, or you don't use the |
| 4 |
> various kernel-sources ebuilds? If you're moving the sources, what |
| 5 |
> makes /opt better than /usr/src? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Actually, I used to rsync the tree to my home dir, but that became tedious and |
| 8 |
time consuming, as well as trying to inject enough stuff to satisfy all the |
| 9 |
virtuals became a headache. So yes, I move the sources to /opt, and it's not |
| 10 |
a "better" thing..but packages dont look for /opt/usr/src/linux-* either. |
| 11 |
Makes it easier to spot an offending package and try to get it fixed/ |
| 12 |
resolved. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Incidentally, I'm quite glad that /usr/src/linux is the target of a lot |
| 15 |
> of our ebuilds, since it's fairly common for me to build and install |
| 16 |
> alsa, pcmcia, and nvidia modules for the kernel I'm about to boot into. |
| 17 |
> (Why do I want to build the modules before rebooting? Because that way I |
| 18 |
> don't have to spend twenty minutes in console mode before I can have |
| 19 |
> working sound, video, and networking.) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Perfectly understandable, if you have that many modules needing built, I'd |
| 22 |
probably want to build it beforehand, also. But for one or two non-critical |
| 23 |
packages, it would be easier to be running the kernel they need to go to. But |
| 24 |
as my disclaimer, I did point out a nice selectable interface for choosing |
| 25 |
the target kernel would be preferred over the current symlink solution. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Chuck Brewer |
| 29 |
Registered Linux User #284015 |
| 30 |
Get my gpg public key at pgp.mit.edu!! Encrypted e-mail preferred. |
Archives