Re: kernel upgrade to 2.4.18 [Solved]
On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 01:51:15PM -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 08:59:32AM -0400, Andrew Perrin wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Paul E Condon wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Also here, the tarball must be untarred, which I figured out myself, and
> > >
> >
> > Sorry - forgot that step!
> >
> > > there must be a softlink
> > > /usr/src/linux that points to
> > > /usr/src/kernel-sources-2.4.18,
> > > which was pointed out to me by Griz Inabnit
> > >
> >
> > No, you do not need such a link. It works fine to compile in
> > /usr/src/kernel-sources-2.4.18. If you prefer to compile in /usr/src/linux
> > then you need the link. If you prefer to compile in /usr/src/disneyland
> > then you need a symlink there.
> >
>
> To expand on my earlier post: Some module selections require the link. If
> you don't request compilation of a module that requires the link, you don't
> need the link. But I know of no way to know, a priori, which modules do
> require the link. I know that for the particular .config that I created
> the link was necessary. In this case, your mileage really does vary.
>
> I think it would be a useful addition to make-kpkg to have it put in this
> link. It costs very little in computer resources, and it saves some users
> from an initial failed kernel build.
>
>
I've recently heard arguments that putting a soft link
/usr/src/linux -> /usr/src/kernel-sources-x.x.xx
breaks things in Debian.
Any comments on this?
--
Kevin C. Smith | "A Society that will trade a little liberty for a
smithkevinc@mchsi.com | little order will lose both, and deserve neither."
Debian GNU/Linux (sid) | -- Thomas Jefferson
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: