#include <hallo.h> * martin f krafft [Mon, Jul 05 2004, 07:57:01PM]: > To my understanding, kernel-headers are to be used in compiling > kernel modules. However, quite a few modules require > $KERNELSOURCE/drivers,
If they don't describe it in the manual, file bugs. > others try to execute `make modules` This works with kernel-headers-2.6...! And for versions below this method be used because whatsoever. > in the KSRC directory Not just in the KSRC directory, they parametrize the call. This is a valid behaviour and recent kernel-package packages include enough files to have working build infrastructure. > and yet others only work with make-kpkg, which requires the kernel > source. Ehm, what do you mean? The module-source _are_ to be used with make-kpkg or compatible build method (eg. running debian/rules with the needed arguments and environment, or using the module-assistant utility). > Therefore, it seems to me that the kernel-headers packages have no > use (at least in 2.6). The following module-source packages cannot > be built with the headers only: > > drm-mach64, bcm4400, bcm5700, lirc, pcmcia, freeswan, openswan, > arla, openafs. <side note>This number of packages is very low (almost ridiculous) for a good statistic. </> I just tried to build the few source packages installed here with kernel-headers-2.6.6-2-686 (using "module-assistant alli -k ...") and most worked: cloop, nvidia, sl-modem, lufs, cdfs, shfs, bcm4400, bcm5700, lufs, ipw2100, ppscsi Some have failed: pcmcia (internal bug, needless requirement of modversions.h) arla (weird hocus pocus with mirroring the kernel build system, broken) loop-aes (using arbitrary build system based on kernel source, known to need the complete source) > In all cases, I tried: Ehm, what about trying to read the docs or make-kpkg source before reporting bugs? > ./debian/rules KSRC=/usr/src/kernel-headers-X.Y.ZZ modules-binary This is _not_ the rule that make-kpkg calls! Some people think that it is "a must" for module-source packages but it is AFAICS just an invention of the dh-make author to unify some commands (but I must admit, I have partially reused its concept in module-assistant include files ;). > Either I am doing something wrong You are. Please read the source of a good module-source package (eg. ALSA) or one control script and/or makefile includes from module-assistant. OTOH, you are a DD and module-source maintainer, do I really need to tell you to RTFM? Regards, Eduard.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
