On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 at 10:21 GMT, Floyd L. Davidson spoke:
> It's still not the right way to do it. The Linux kernel
> documentation quoted above makes that clear, and should be the guide
> to follow.

A few days ago I untar'd the 2.6.5 kernel sources into /usr/src. I
built it and installed it with no problems at all. I am running it
now. Before building it I changed the /usr/src/linux symlink to point
to /usr/src/linux-2.6.5.

--
The King of Pots and Pans

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:37:24 +0000, Eef Hartman wrote:

> This is just not true for Slackware, the "kernel-headers" package,
> which is the one the "libraries" used, installs under /usr/include and
> does NOT have any links to /usr/src.

> In fact, when you don't install any "kernel-source" package, you
> haven't even got any /usr/src/linux* dirs OR links.

> And Pat himself DOES install his new, updated kernel sources under

> /usr/src

> and DOES install a link from /usr/src/linux-<version> to

> /usr/src/linux,

> out of the (yesterday released for 9.1) 2.4.26 kernel-source package:
> ( cd usr/src ; rm -rf linux )
> ( cd usr/src ; ln -sf linux-2.4.26 linux )
> ( cd usr/src/linux-2.4.26/include ; rm -rf asm )
> ( cd usr/src/linux-2.4.26/include ; ln -sf asm-i386 asm )
> From the "doinst.sh" script IN that package.

> So he DOES install the links under /usr/src, but makes NO links from
> /usr/include TO /usr/src.

I was wondering about this. I was thinking maybe I'd gone blind

--
Now with more Penguin
Email - rsgibson@verizon.borg
Replace borg with net

The King of Pots and Pans <King@ask.for.email.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 at 10:21 GMT, Floyd L. Davidson spoke:
>> It's still not the right way to do it. The Linux kernel
>> documentation quoted above makes that clear, and should be the guide
>> to follow.
>
>A few days ago I untar'd the 2.6.5 kernel sources into /usr/src. I
>built it and installed it with no problems at all. I am running it
>now. Before building it I changed the /usr/src/linux symlink to point
>to /usr/src/linux-2.6.5.

Even after reading the instructions not to?

That *is* okay, *if* you know what you are doing. But if you've
accidentally changed the headers found under /usr/include, then
eventually it will bite you hard if you compile many programs.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

On 2004-04-29, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@barrow.com> wrote:
> The King of Pots and Pans <King@ask.for.email.invalid> wrote:
>>On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 at 10:21 GMT, Floyd L. Davidson spoke:
>>> It's still not the right way to do it. The Linux kernel
>>> documentation quoted above makes that clear, and should be the guide
>>> to follow.
>>
>>A few days ago I untar'd the 2.6.5 kernel sources into /usr/src. I
>>built it and installed it with no problems at all. I am running it
>>now. Before building it I changed the /usr/src/linux symlink to point
>>to /usr/src/linux-2.6.5.
>
> Even after reading the instructions not to?
>
> That *is* okay, *if* you know what you are doing. But if you've
> accidentally changed the headers found under /usr/include, then
> eventually it will bite you hard if you compile many programs.

What is being missed here is that it is explicitly */usr/src/linux* that is
being referenced here. That says nothing about */usr/src* itself. I've
always had all the kernel sources under /usr/src, each in an appropriately
labeled directory. /usr/src/linux, in my installations, are symlinks to one
of the labeled directories. Also under /usr/src is the rpm stuff....

The point of the whole business is this: don't stuff two kernel sources in
the same directory! Or what am I missing here?

>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com


--
Email is wtallman at olypen dot com