Re: kernel upgrade to 2.4.18 [Solved]
On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 05:55:31PM -0500, Kevin C. Smith wrote:
> 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?
>
I did one test as follows:
I used the config file that the maintainer place in
kernel-image-2.4.18-686_2.4.18-5_i386.deb
This file gets installed at /boot/config-2.4.18-686
I copied it to /usr/scr/kernel-source-2.4.18/.config and did two builds using
make-kpkg. One build with the softlink and one without. I looked at the
resulting two debian kernel-image packages using gmc. All the required modules
were in the package that was made with the softlink. Many modules were missing
from the package that was made without the softlink.
Maybe with a different selection of config settings the results would be
different. In particular, if I made a config file that did not call for any
of the modules that were missing, I suppose I would get a 'successful' build
without the softlink.
My simple view of how computers work makes it very hard for me to believe that
an extra softlink would break a piece of functioning software. Replacing a
directory that is used for scratch with a softlink to a directory that contains
valuable stuff would surely play hob with the build, but that is not what is
being done.
My test results have really strengthened my respect for Debian and it
maintainers. And for this list. Thanks to you all.
> --
> 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
>
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@quiknet.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: