On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 03:11:43AM -0700, Paul Scott wrote: > Nathan E Norman wrote: > > >On Sun, Aug 12, 2001 at 02:04:24PM -0700, Paul Scott wrote: > > > >>>[1] /usr/src has even been deprecated AFAIK. > >>> > >>Please post anything you know about this. The Filesystem Hierarechy > >>Standard doesn't mention this. > >> > > > >He simply means that you aren't [0] supposed to compile kernels > >there. > > > I understand compiling and the files involved but I don't yet know where > all these files go during a kernel compilation. Doesn't "apt-get > install" put kernel sources in subdirectories of /usr/src ? I guess > this is what you mean with your next sentence? Not really. What happens when you install the debian kernel-source-blabla package is a bzipped tarball appears in /usr/src. Most people then unpack said tarball in /usr/src (creating a directory /usr/src/kernel-source-blabla), but there's no requirement that you unpack in /usr/src. In fact, there's no requirement that you use the debian packaged kernel source ... tarballs from kernel.org are just as valid. Again, where you unpack and build them is your choice. > >/usr/src is under control of the packaging system, so if it were to > >blow away your source tree you shouldn't be surprised. > > If I modify the sources and then reinstall them of course I would be in > trouble? No ... think of it this way: /usr/local/src or /home will never be altered by dpkg. Anything you put there will remain there barring disaster or user error. OTOH, /usr/src _is_ a candidate for alteration by dpkg. Someone could devise a diabolical package which finds all the /usr/src/kernel-source-blabla directories and removes them. This has never happened, and I don't see any reason why it should, but why tempt fate? Don't put things in directories controlled by dpkg :) -- Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better Micromuse Ltd. | than a perfect plan tomorrow. mailto:nnorman@micromuse.com | -- Patton
Attachment:
pgpYwjGR7tJi1.pgp
Description: PGP signature