Re: kernel headers---FAQ
Hi,
>>"adavis" == adavis <adavis@netpci.com> writes:
adavis> I apologize profusely for this posting. Here it goes again.
adavis> Before I get started, yes, I have read the nice mail from
adavis> Linux about the kernel headers, and I have respectfully read
adavis> the many emails I have received on this topic from thoughtful
adavis> developers. But I am still confused. I am sorry, but I still
adavis> have questions about this. This time my confusion begins from
adavis> having installed the new libc6-dev package, which demands to
adavis> have the kernel-headers-2.0.32 and linux-kernel-source-2.0.32
adavis> installed. I was able to install using
adavis> --ignore-depends=linux-kernel-headers-2.0.32.
I think that is a mistake. I have installed the latest
kernel-headers-2.0.32 (a very small package) along with the libc6-dev
package with nary a force required. You are doing something wrong
here.
adavis> However, this troubles me. Mind you (all) I am not saying
adavis> that what you are doing is wrong. I am just saying that it's
adavis> a bit more of a kludge than I wish to deal with to have to
adavis> remember that since I am using a debian system I have to go
adavis> through another whole procedure to compile anything, in
adavis> particular a kernel.
If indeed force-<anything> were required to install packaegs,
I would agree with you. But it is not. The situation now is, that if
you want libc6-dev, you also need kernel-headers (*OR* kernel source
packages, but not both) package. People are not used to installing
the headers, and hence this imbroglio.
adavis> This letter from Linux has been around since when, but can I
adavis> ask, if this method is truly better, why have the REAL linux
adavis> kernel sources not yet adopted it? Now I read that I can go
adavis> ahead and compile the other kernels, but I have to remember
adavis> another switch. A slight expedience? Not to me, of such
adavis> little knowledge, I fear.
No switch. No magic. No symlinks. If you follow the
recommended guidelines, you do not have to do anything like this. You
start forcing things, and, sorry, you have attained an unsupported
configuration.
I have always maintained you should never say --force to dpkg
unless you know what you are doing. In this case, you do not
seem to have met that criterion.
adavis> So let me now ask, I hope politely, whether I HAVE to do
adavis> things this other recommended way, purportedly so much better
adavis> that Debian is putting one up on Linus, or is it safe to do
adavis> things the normal linux way? (Ie., following the instructions
adavis> in a kernel source package). I have been doing to, and have
adavis> had no recent trouble with 2.0.X kernels, but I haven't been
adavis> able to get PPP to run on 2.1.{67,71,72, or 73} kernels,
adavis> although they did compile.
If you do things which are not the Debian way, then you are
responsible for any breakage. You follow the guidelines, and you have
libc6-dev and kernel-headers-2.0.32 from the Debian distribution,
then everything shall be fine. You can have any number of other
kernel sources on your machines, with no problems.
I can run 2.1.65 (anything more recent gives me problems with
diald). I have a supported configuration. It works.
adavis> I appreciate the work that the developers have been putting
adavis> into this system. Thank you to each and every person who has
adavis> donated time to this project. I still hope that one day I
adavis> will be able to contribute something in return.
Why, thank you kindly, Sir.
manoj
--
"Life, loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it." Marvin the
paranoid android
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: