1 |
On Tuesday 16 September 2003 23:32, Ni[o wrote: |
2 |
> Ma question est simple, pourquoi il me propose de mettre à jour le |
3 |
> linux-headers du 2.4.19 alors que je tourne en 2.4.20 ?? |
4 |
|
5 |
parce qu'il s'agit des en-têtes qui ont servi à compiler la glibc, et qu'il |
6 |
vaut mieux avoir des en-têtes en accord avec les bibliothèques. |
7 |
|
8 |
Voilà l'explication par Linus Torvalds lui même : |
9 |
|
10 |
I would suggest that people who compile new kernels should: |
11 |
|
12 |
- not have a single symbolic link in sight (except the one that the |
13 |
kernel build itself sets up, namely the "linux/include/asm" symlink |
14 |
that is only used for the internal kernel compile itself) |
15 |
|
16 |
And yes, this is what I do. My /usr/src/linux still has the old 2.2.13 |
17 |
header files, even though I haven't run a 2.2.13 kernel in a _loong_ |
18 |
time. But those headers were what glibc was compiled against, so those |
19 |
headers are what matches the library object files. |
20 |
|
21 |
And this is actually what has been the suggested environment for at |
22 |
least the last five years. I don't know why the symlink business keeps |
23 |
on living on, like a bad zombie. Pretty much every distribution still |
24 |
has that broken symlink, and people still remember that the linux |
25 |
sources should go into "/usr/src/linux" even though that hasn't been |
26 |
true in a _loong_ time. |
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
Richard |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
gentoo-user-fr@g.o mailing list |