Re: Bug#346281: Proposal to solve this to everyone's convenience
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:38:17AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:20:57 +0100, Sven Luther <email@example.com> 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/$uname -r)/build there,
> since that shall not work.
for flavour in apus powerpc powerpc-smp powerpc64; dp
... do stuff ...
> Why can't the script have:
> | KVERS=<VERSION_I_AM_TRYING_TO_BUILD_FOR>
> | if [ -e "/lib/modules/$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 ?