Re: Adding linux-image-<version> dependency on linux-headers-<version>?
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 09:59:46PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Hello all,
First, see a previous thread about this here.
> I am curious as to the reasoning behind not including the kernel headers
> along with a kernel install? The reason that I bring this up is that many
> (new/Joe) users end up unable to figure out why they can't compile certain
> modules (such as the nvidia driver, etc.)...until someone more knowledgeable
> points out that kernel-headers-<version> needs to be installed (for example,
First, its called linux-headers-<version> now, and the current status is in
flux, and we will soon write a document explaining the way this is supposed to
work with the new infrastructure more in detail.
Now, those wanting to compile third party drivers like the nvidia ones, should
take the nvidia package (or whatever it is called) and build it following to
instructions, or even better, the new policy should call for pre-compilation
for all official flavours of those modules, like it is already done on powerpc
for the MOL packages for example.
In any case, if it fails because of missing headers, there is a bug in the
third-party-module package.
> see
> http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&postid=1901559#post1901559,
> and other threads that i and many others have replied to with basically the
> same suggestion to install the headers). There is a probably a certain
> amount of user rejection because of this (at least one of my friends gave up
> on Debian in part because of this...he's moved on to mac os...which is not
> totally unadmirable).
The sarge situation was a complete mess, and i strongly suggest to move to a
2.6.12 backport. The situation there should be rather clear, and to build
third party modules, you only need to set KSRC=/lib/modules/<version>/build,
works fine.
> I understand that the kernel-headers-<version> package adds about 50 megs of
> data to a default install (which is already at about 2 gigs anyway when
> selecting desktop environment in tasksel), but with disk space so readily
> available (200 gigs for like $100), I see no reason why this should be a
> factor. Besides, those interested in disk space conservation can prune the
> package if they so desire. So what are the other reasons for the current
> situation? Can this be changed? And if so, how? Thank you for your
> consideration of the poor Joe User.
Users should not need to build modules, and we should not force the
installation of header packages if the user don't want to. Clear instructions
need to be written (and will soon, once 2.6.13+ reach the archive), both for
end users and third-party-modules packagers, on how to best do this, but the
best solution is to have the modules prebuilt for the official kernels.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: