1 |
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 05:47:09PM +0100, John Mylchreest wrote: |
2 |
> First of all, falling back on `uname -r` isn't going to happen for |
3 |
> several reasons. I can understand for some why this might seem sensible |
4 |
> (what happens if you remove your kernel sources for example). But the |
5 |
> fact remains that testing the currently running kernel is not a viable |
6 |
> option in my mind. Why? well, 1: the running kernel bares absolutely no |
7 |
> relevance on the environment which you're building this for. 2: you can |
8 |
> pass KERNEL_DIR manually, so if you refuse to work in the expected way |
9 |
> then set KERNEL_DIR to point to the right location. |
10 |
|
11 |
People who prefer building against /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build/ can |
12 |
just set KERNEL_DIR=/lib/modules/`uname -r`/build/ and all will be |
13 |
dandy. |
14 |
|
15 |
I agree that the current solutions with /usr/src/linux and KERNEL_DIR |
16 |
overriding is the optimal solution - at least I have yet to hear about |
17 |
a better solution. |
18 |
|
19 |
Regards, |
20 |
Brix |
21 |
-- |
22 |
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@g.o> |
23 |
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd |