On Tue, 29 May 2001, you wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2001, Richard Adams wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 28 May 2001, Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> > > Two final thoughts. Remember to read Documentation/Changes in the source
> > > for the new kernel, several utilities need to be upgraded. Also, making
> > > kernels in /usr/src/linux can be dangerous - packages, particularly glibc,
> > > can rely on finding the headers there for the kernel against which they
> > > were compiled. Some people recommend building kernels in ~/, I use
> > > /usr/src/local, the exact place you build them doesn't matter that much.
> >
> > I thought 'make mrproper took care of symbolic links to asm and include files.?
> > and why could it be danerous to have /usr/src/linux, after all the directory
> > "linux" should be a symbolic link to the kernel version, normally
> > /usr/src/linux-{version} is a symlink to /usr/src/linux that is AFAIK "the
> > linux way" of doing things, or at least thats how slackware does it, if that
> > were dangerous then they certainly would not do it that way would they.?
> >
> Richard,
> I defer to your greater knowledge. On other lists I have seen protracted
> comments about /usr/src/linux. I have definitely seen people report
> problems after untarring new kernel source over their existing
> /usr/src/linux.
> Ken
O i now see what you mean, if one does not read the manuel one knows not of the
pit falls, if this one could be called a pit fall.
Having said that even if the old source is over written there is no problem,
the kernel would have been made and the kernel installed either in /boot or /
so where is the problem.?
I advise the following, it used to be in the kernel source README.
cd /usr/src/
rm linux
mkdir linux-x.x.x
ln -s linux-x.x.x linux
tar xzf kernel-source.tar.gz
cd linux
make mrproper
The old source now stays intact and make mrproper does the linking.
That i belive is the way most all distributions do it.
If one wants to recompile an older kernel version simply delete the symlink and
recreate a new one pointing to the older source tree.
Further more i belive Linus Torvalds once wrote that there should never be an
"actual" linux directory, simply a symbolic link to the kernel version source.
Having said that the Kernel-HOWTO does referance a "linux" directory as being a
directory, but it does explain about "renaming" the old source dir, namely
"linux". So in that respect it could be said the Kernel-HOWTO is a little
misleading but there agin not.
Like the old saying goes, RTFM'ing does wonders.
No read the manuel, old source gets deleted.
As a matter of fact Redhat have gone one futher with version 7.1 they have the
following;
in /usr/src a directory called linux-2.4.2 and a symlink called linux-2.4
pointing to linux-2.4.2.
Of course one can do what he/she wants to with the directorys, its what you
want not what the operating system wants, i said that without saying Micky$oft
did i not.!
Have fun.
> --
> That's it, six times nine, forty-two.
>
> Home page : http://www.kenmoffat.uklinux.net
--
Regards Richard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://people.zeelandnet.nl/pa3gcu/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
