On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:17:48 PST "Karl M. Hegbloom"
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I discovered today, while attempting to compile the modutils for the
> Linux 2.1.21 development kernel, that Debian installs a set of kernel
> includes into /usr/include/{asm,linux}, rather than the standard
> symlinks to the kernel source tree!
You're right on this, read on.
> This causes an undefined symbol error; and only the gods know what
> else. -- are there structures changed too?
No, you probably forgot to "make config; make depend; make clean".
The linux kernel uses correct -I directives so that it doesn't access
anymore /usr/include/linux and /usr/linclude/asm.
> I would like it if the libc maintainer would make his installation
> setup so that the symlinks are created if the installer wants them,
> and the headers if they want that... Just ask a question from the
> install script maybe?
The reason why we use this scheme is the following: These directories
come with the libc5-dev package, ie with the C library. Inconsistency
between a program compiled with different kernel headers than those
used with libc can cause problems.
> Perhaps kernel includes should be a separate package, and symlinks
> created in /usr/include to them. I think that this is what most linux
> programmers will expect to find in /usr/include.
No, that's the (wrong ?) slackware ways. The only time where you need
to have the real kernel headers installed is when you compile a
separate kernel module. The kernel headers are provided in a package
kernel-headers-<version>
> If I upgrade libc, will that wipe out my kernel tree now that I've
> 'rm -r'd the /usr/include/{linux,asm} directories, and created
> symlinks to /usr/src/linux/include/{linux,asm-i386}? I'd like it if
> the libc maintainer's scripts would check for that also, please.
Yes, but this is the right way.
Good luck with your kernel compilation...
Phil.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
