On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 10:21 -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote: > Andrew Beverley wrote these words on 02/07/07 10:11 CST: > > > So unless there is a really good reason for not using the KERNEL_DIR > > variable, I would suggest that, at a minimum, the book is changed to > > state that KERNEL_DIR should always be set. > > Well, this issue goes back years. And we consider a package broken > if it requires raw kernel headers. We'll have to work on this, but > for now, and for version 6.2.0, nothing will change. The current > (6.2.0) instructions work.
Hmmm, they don't work :-) There's about a dozen extensions that (silently) don't get compiled or installed. > Using raw kernel headers will be an absolute last recourse. I > don't think that unless there's a major philosophy change, we'll > end up doing it. Okay, how about as a compromise, at least a note stating that for some extensions you have to provide the KERNEL_DIR variable? I spent ages working out why the extensions were missing - like I say they fail silently so it looks like everything has worked until you try using that match or target. On another note, can you still change to version 1.3.6? Regards, Andy Beverley -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
