On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 01:51:15PM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 08:59:32AM -0400, Andrew Perrin wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Paul E Condon wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > Also here, the tarball must be untarred, which I figured out myself, and > > > > > > > Sorry - forgot that step! > > > > > there must be a softlink > > > /usr/src/linux that points to > > > /usr/src/kernel-sources-2.4.18, > > > which was pointed out to me by Griz Inabnit > > > > > > > No, you do not need such a link. It works fine to compile in > > /usr/src/kernel-sources-2.4.18. If you prefer to compile in /usr/src/linux > > then you need the link. If you prefer to compile in /usr/src/disneyland > > then you need a symlink there. > > > > To expand on my earlier post: Some module selections require the link. If > you don't request compilation of a module that requires the link, you don't > need the link. But I know of no way to know, a priori, which modules do > require the link. I know that for the particular .config that I created > the link was necessary. In this case, your mileage really does vary. > > I think it would be a useful addition to make-kpkg to have it put in this > link. It costs very little in computer resources, and it saves some users > from an initial failed kernel build. > >
I've recently heard arguments that putting a soft link /usr/src/linux -> /usr/src/kernel-sources-x.x.xx breaks things in Debian. Any comments on this? -- Kevin C. Smith | "A Society that will trade a little liberty for a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | little order will lose both, and deserve neither." Debian GNU/Linux (sid) | -- Thomas Jefferson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
