> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:06:46AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> True -- *but*, it must be pointed out that this is historic!
>> In a modern GNU/Linux distribution, /usr/include/linux should
>> *not* be a symlink to anything at all. It should be a plain
>> directory containing the kernel header files with which the
>> GNU libc was built.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:04:29PM -0500, Ambrose Li wrote:
> If such a drastic change in convention had taken place and
> I have never read about it when I did my upgrade (which was
> not very long ago --
The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard document version 2.3 of the Linux
Standard Base project (http://www.linuxbase.org/) lists the following:
"
usr/include : Header files included by C programs
These symbolic links are required if a C or C++ compiler is installed
and only for systems not based on glibc.
/usr/include/asm -> /usr/src/linux/include/asm-<arch>
/usr/include/linux -> /usr/src/linux/include/linux
"
I read this as saying if you're using glibc at all you should no longer
have or use the symlinks. Most modern distributions will both be using
glibc and striving for LSB/FHS compliance. (I'm pretty sure if you dig
around you'll find older PRs from RedHat/SuSE/Mandrake/Debian regarding
LSB 1.0 compliance).
-Robert
Attachment:
pgpWJ_ieP4Bd6.pgp
Description: PGP signature