On Tue, 29 May 2001, Mike Castle wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 02:49:15PM +0000, Richard Adams wrote:
> > 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.?
>
>
> The problem is libc.
As far as i see it, it is NOT a lib problem, anyway how could it be a libc
problem when in this day and age we use "glibc".
>
> Many distributions have /usr/src/{asm,linux} as symlinks into the
> /usr/src/linux/include heirarchy.
I think we need to know that its not a distribution who creates these symlinks
but the actual make program itself, once again 'make mrproper' does this for us
does it not.?. It was not so long ago that one needed to create these links
him/herself.
>
> However, the stuff you see in /usr/src/linux/* should _ALWAYS_ be what libc
> was _built_ against.
libc.!.
>
> If you change what /usr/src/linux is pointing to, then you run the risk of
> compiling some other program against possibly incompatible versions of the
> kernel header files.
Is it not the other way around, linux is the symlink and points to where ever
you as the user point it too....
>
> So, if you NEVER build any user programs (oh wait, building the kernel
> builds some user mode programs, doesn't it?) then you need not worry.
Tell me about it.???
Once again, every Makefile can be edited to look for whatever it needs in
whatever directory you want it to look, another great example of linux, try
that in a Micky$oft enviroment.
>
> If your /usr/include/{asm,linux} are actually subdirectories, populated by
> the contents of the appropriate kernel, then you need not worry.
I think you have miss interpreted the whole point of this tread, no one
mentioned "directorys" under "linux" as in /usr/src/linux, they (the ones you
say) are all symlinks period. Header files reside in /usr/include which is then
linked to /usr/src/linux/include/(whatever).
>
> I think more of the distributions are starting to get this right.
AFAIK they all had it correct, its just that users decide they want things
changed as they find the linux way misleading, possably because they have not
read the manuel properly...
>
> However, if you have an older distribution, then you may run into these
> types of issues.
Never have and never will because i always leave it as is, in other words,
take slackware as an example, it installs /usr/src/ ,in there it installs the
kernel source into linux-x.x.x then it links linux-x.x.x to linux so linux is a
"symbolic link". No links are made to any include file(s) or directorys, 'make
mrproper' does that for you, you can of corse do it the old fashioned way and
link them yourself.
Of course if some unkowing sole untars a kernel source file in /usr/src without
removing the old symlink and creating a new one then he is going to lose his
old kernel source and as i said before so what, no big deal, it is after all
replaceable without any lose of data (oops) sorry the only file wich is
relavant is .config containg your last configured kernel and that can be
created with a simple 'make {menu}{x}config' period, i prefer 'make config' i
am old fashioned and like the way linux IS designed.
I just dont see the problem. Maybe my 10 years of Linux use is too much for me
to understand just what the problem is that you/others think is there.?
Have a nice Linux day...
>
> mrc
--
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
