Manoj Srivastava typed: > Hi, > > I'll reverse the question: why are you using the links? > The links are ignored anyway while compiling the kernel, so that's > not it. However, you may totally confuse some other program (during > compilation) that does not expect changes that are made in the kernel > includes. You see, changes may be made in kernel headers in concert > with other include files, which have not been upgraded, files that > are not required for kernel builds, but may be required for package > XYZ. The links being ignored is interesting. I guess you mean the links are not neccessary due to an -I/usr/src/linux/include type parameter being used with gcc.
The reason why *I* need the symlinks in is for my specific circumstances. For those that don't understand what the bunch of letters after my name (or even the ones after Bruce's) I'm a radio amateur. There is a flurry of activity going on here, as we build a lot of things, new protocols included, for use in amateur radio. This usually means the tools need to be upgraded every 8 patch levels or so. Naturally, I'm talking about 2.1.x kernels. > So, what else are the links good for? Most programs do not > (and should not) depend on kernel version specific api's; and the > handful that do should ask for and include -I/usr/src/linux anyway. What is the "Linux position" on asking to use /usr/src/linux includes? If this is the way things are going, can you point me to a reference of this? For example, where is the canned reply from? I'll let the people on linux-hams know this may be something we need to look at, it will at least draw some discussion there. - Craig -- // /\ | | | Craig Small VK2XLZ @home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ||==||===|==|=| [44.136.13.17] @play: [EMAIL PROTECTED] \\ \/ | | | finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP key! -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
