| 1 |
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 08:39:54 -0700 |
| 2 |
"C. Brewer" <cbrewer@×××××××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tuesday 21 October 2003 5:58, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Tuesday 21 October 2003 08:48, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > How must a package determine what kernel is system is using? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > it uses the /usr/src/linux symlink to determine running kernel ... |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Not exactly the _running_ kernel, but the _target_ kernel. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> But why do we keep up with the obselete link? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Because it is useful to be able to compile modules for a target kernel |
| 15 |
that may be different than the running kernel, and a symlink is a |
| 16 |
good way to point the target of your choice. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> So we still have link climbing even though we have the linux-headers |
| 19 |
> package which is supposed to prevent just that... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I don't see how system headers are related to modules compilation. The |
| 22 |
flameable symlink is the /usr/include/linux, but it's a different issue. |
| 23 |
It is something that on some other distros points on kernel includes |
| 24 |
from kernel sources, but as you said, on Gentoo, we have a linux-headers |
| 25 |
package and a real directory, so we do things the right way. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Now, about /usr/src/linux-beta, I don't neither understand its semantics |
| 29 |
or usefulness. Obviously, /usr/src/linux is the way to go also for 2.6 |
| 30 |
kernels, at least that's what is assumed in modules ebuilds, so I |
| 31 |
usually just delete linux-beta or ignore it. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
TGL. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives