RE: confusion regarding kernel-source and ibcs source
>From email@example.com Fri May 30 09:49:58 1997
>Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 09:42:11 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Colin Telmer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: Debian Development <email@example.com>
>Subject: confusion regarding kernel-source and ibcs source
>Recently, I grabbed the newest ibcs source (ibcs_970513-2) and compiled it
>sucessfully on my machine (running hamm and kernel 2.0.29). I then
>proceeded to try the same thing on two other debian machines (running 1.3)
>using the same source for ibcs. It choked because
>/usr/src/linux/include/linux/modversions.h was missing. I realized that I
>did not install the kernel source on these machines and did so and tried
>again. Still choked due to that missing file. So I decided to look at if
>modversion.h was included in the kernel source. It isn't. Doing a search
>[Michael Meskes] You're right. A while ago we decided to use a versioned
>kernel and versioned modules (at least I think so, since I did not maintain a
>module back then) because that makes it easier to use one module for
>different kernel releases. But it seems the kernel package does not create a
>versioned kernel. It seems we're not on the same page right now. Ot course we
>should be :-(
>using dpkg --search, I found out that file only exists in
>So my question is, does kernel-package put that file into the source tree?
>Or, more generally, how did it get into my source tree? Also, should there
>be some documentation in the ibcs package warning of this? Cheers.
>[Michael Meskes] Right now you can only create the files (you also need the
>modules subdir) by recompiling the kernel with MODULE_VERSION defined.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .