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
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
Not Debian applications AFAIK. Also, from
| 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.