Re: kernel headers---FAQ

[Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>]

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:

> Avery> The FSSTND, according to your quote, says only (1).  It does
> Avery> NOT say (2), which means I am not breaking things by putting
> Avery> local source code there, particularly if I am complying with
> Avery> the FSSTND by placing the Linux kernel source code in
> Avery> /usr/src/linux.
> 
> 	Semantically, you are correct. However, in practice, if
>  /usr/src is where non local src code goes, then if you put local code
>  there as well there is no way to avoid conflicts.Rather than saying
>  that non-local code be thrown out of /usr/src; I prefer to reserve
>  that for vendor code. After all, there is a well established place
>  for local code to go already.

Actually, I believe Manoj is correct, depending on how you read the
FSSTND.  So far, no one's quoted the other relevant bit which
contradicts Avery's assumption that he's not breaking things by
putting local source code in /usr/src:

  4.  The /usr Hierarchy

  /usr is the second major section of the filesystem.  /usr is shareable,
  read-only data.  That means that /usr should be shareable between
  various machines running Linux and should not be written to.  Any
  information that is machine-local or varies with time is stored
  elsewhere. 

It says "*any* information that is machine-local" goes elsewhere.
This tends to support the view that anything the user unpacks should
go in /usr/local/src.

So we have:

  1) Any non-local src should go in /usr/src
  2) No machine-local data should go under /usr (with the explicit
     exception of /usr/local).

Although I was initially a little surprised to see that I was putting
files in the wrong place, I got over it.

-- 
Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>
PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94  53 2B 97 F5 D6 4E 39 30


--
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 .