Hi all, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi, > > Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> skribis: > >> Danny Milosavljevic <dan...@scratchpost.org> writes: >> >>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 18:55:11 +0100 (BST) >>> <pki...@runbox.com> wrote: >>> >>>> It would be good to keep the build directory though, since it's >>>> expected to exist, and it's easier to just download a module's >>>> source and compile it and test it. >>> >>> I agree. >>> >>> /run/booted-system/kernel/lib/modules/4.17.3-gnu is in the store >>> anyway so it will be seen by the GC. >>> >>> The fix would be in linux-libre. >> >> If we were to preserve the kernel build directory as a store item, and >> keep a link from the modules directory to the build directory, that >> would greatly increase the size of the most minimal system that users >> could build. > > Yeah, we shouldn’t do that IMO. > >> If the intent here is to allow support for out-of-tree kernel modules, >> then fixing these symlinks would not solve the problem, and it's not >> clear to me that fixing them would be part of a proper solution on >> GuixSD. GuixSD is not a system where you can simply compile a kernel >> module manually and install it, because our module directory is >> immutable. If the goal is to support building out-of-tree kernel >> modules, that's a separate discussion that deserves its own "wishlist" >> bug report, I think. > > I agree. > > Ludo’. I am closing this old bug since the broken 'build' symlink no longer exists (nor do any other broken symlinks, as far as I can tell). As for building out-of-tree kernel modules, we now have linux-module-build-system, which uses `make-linux-module-builder', which builds the 'build' directory straight from the linux source with `make modules_prepare'. There are some improvements to be had there, for sure, but like mentioned above, that deserves its own wishlist item. -- Sarah
