Re: Bug#346281: Proposal to solve this to everyone's convenience

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:38:17AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:20:57 +0100, Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> said: 
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:12:14AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Why? Anyone who wants to use the headers provided by the headers
> >> package must sent an env var, anyway, so why not just set the var
> >> to /usr/sr/linux-header-foo? What is the benefit of this symlink?
> 
> > For consistency's sake, and so that users can write scripts building
> > modules, which will not change if we modify the
> > /usr/src/linux-header-foo path down the road.
> 
>         Err, this does not make sense.  What do you put into the
>  script? Obviously, you can't put /lib/modules/$uname -r)/build there,
>  since that shall not work.

version=2.6.15-1
for flavour in apus powerpc powerpc-smp powerpc64; dp
  KSRC="/lib/modules/$version-$flavour/build"
  ... do stuff ...
done

>         Why can't the script have:
> ,----
> | KVERS=<VERSION_I_AM_TRYING_TO_BUILD_FOR>
> | if [ -e "/lib/modules/$KVERS/build" ]; then
> |     export KSRC="/lib/modules/$KVERS/build"
> | elif [ -d "/usr/src/linux-headers-$KVERS" ]; then
> |     export KSRC="/usr/src/linux-headers-$KVERS"
> | fi
> `----

Ah, yeah, and how will that cope once we rename linux-headers to
linux-module-build to clearly mark that these packages are not for building
random userland stuff, but only for kernel modules ? 

You go out there and modify thousands of third-party module package or
home-brewn scripts ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther