[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Kernel upgrade usr/src/linux

John Talbut wrote:
The stricture in kernel-source-2.6.8/README (there does not seem to be a reference to this in README.debian) reads:

"- If you install the full sources, put the kernel tarball in a directory where you have permissions (eg. your home directory) and unpack it:

        gzip -cd linux-2.6.XX.tar.gz | tar xvf -

   Replace "XX" with the version number of the latest kernel.

Do NOT use the /usr/src/linux area! This area has a (usually incomplete) set of kernel headers that are used by the library header files. They should match the library, and not get messed up by whatever the kernel-du-jour happens to be."

As I understand it, that means do not put sources in /usr/src/linux. However, it seems that a lot of applications expect to find something at /usr/src/linux.

Not Debian applications AFAIK. Also, from /usr/share/doc/kernel-package/README.gz :
| To use this package to create kernel-image packages, you need to get
| the kernel source (available from your favorite Linux archive),
| unpack your kernel somewhere. Preferably somewhere other than
| /usr/src/linux (more on this later).

(I assume you are using kernel-package to build your kernel.)

Symlinking it to the actual source seems to satisfy that expectation whilst complying with the stricture by not actually putting anything in it.

AIUI (and I apologise for the high acronym ratio), the user is meant to leave all management of /usr to dpkg, excluding /usr/local. Again, I have no reference to hand, although Martin Krafft mentions it in his book.

I did in fact have various old files in /usr/src/linux and I could have done with some reassurance that it was OK to delete it all and replace it with the symlink (well, it seems to have been).

So I do not know if there is an issue here, do I need to raise a bug report in order to get some additional explanation in the release notes?

If you feel the release notes are incomplete, then a bug report is probably the way to go (preferably with a patch :). But please bear in mind the above.

Reply to: