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

Re: Bug#336732: /lib/modules/*/build symlink should be ignored when checking if kernel is installed

* Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> [2005-11-05 23:51]:
>         Why should a symlink be ignored? What other stuff would people
>  want to have ignored if we start on a slippery slope like this?
>  nividia-source, vmware, and scads of others would like to dump stuff
>  in /lib/modules, and the book keeping involved in keeping track of
>  stuff in the /lib/modules/ which is OK to ignore would be
>  massive.

>         The presence of that link is a bug, and should be fixed.

Can you explain why it is a bug?  I think upstream puts header files
in /lib/modules/<foo>/build/ too, so it's not as if this is a Debian
specific thing. (Correct me if I'm wrong; also CCing -kernel).

Given that the warning by kernel-package talks about modules, why
don't you do a 'find' and look for .o and .ko files?

>  kernel-package itself does not create that link, and the entity
>  responsible for that link should know better.

AFAIK many external build process (for kernel modules) except
/lib/modules/<foo>/build, so it's hardly a matter about "knowing
better" on the side of the kernel-headers package.  Unless you get
upstream to change, it's quite likely that people will have a build
symlink in their modules dir and the kernel-build message will
therefore be useless and even misleading.  kernel-headers is also
different to your other examples (e.g. nividia-source) in that it
doesn't put _modules_ there.  So given that this is a well-known
exception, I don't see why it would be so hard or troublesome to
ignore /lib/modules/<foo>/build when checking for modules dir.  It's
like one line of Perl code - and it will reduce one false positive.

>         There is a workaround for you, of course, until the bug is
>  fixed in the proper place:

I'm fairly sure the "proper place" is kernel-package and not
kernel-headers, as outlined above.

> ,----[ Manual page kernel-img.conf(5) ]
> | silent_modules
> |     This option has been put in for the people who are vastly  irri-
> |     tated  on  being  warned  about  preexisting  modules  directory
> |     /lib/modules/$version That directory may belong  to  an  old  or
> |     defunct  kernel-image-$version  package,  in which case problems

And even if we continue to disagree, this bug report should be
reopened to become a wishlist to mention kernel-headers in this

Martin Michlmayr

Reply to: