Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-info.eclass and $CONFIG_CHECK
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 10:55:07
Message-Id: 20050922104958.GA2652@dmz.fungus
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-info.eclass and $CONFIG_CHECK by John Mylchreest
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