Re: kernel source tree
On Friday 05 March 2004 01:39, CW Harris wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 09:34:27PM +0100, Richard Lyons wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 March 2004 19:40, CW Harris wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 09:47:38AM -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> > > > On 2004-03-04, Richard Lyons penned:
[...]
> > > > > Can someone kindly tell me what is meant by "the root of the
> > > > > source tree"?
> > >
> > > The top level directory of the kernel source. E.g.
> > > /usr/src/linux-2.4.22/ or /home/me/src/linux-2.4.25/
[...]
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding. You do:
> cd /usr/src/linux-2.4.22
> make-kpkg modules-image
>
> and you get the error:
> > > > > "We do not seem to be in a top level linux kernel source
> > > > > directory tree..."
Exactly so.
>
> And yet /usr/src/linux-2.4.22 contains your kernel source?
> Is this correct?
well, I just discovered that when I installed kernel-source package, it
only put a .tar.bz2 file there. So I unpacked it and now there are
thousands (? hundreds, anyway) of .c and .h and other files in a tree
there.
Now I am not qualified to know if the right things are
there. /usr/src/linux-2.4.22 contains 'Makefile', 'Rules.make' and
'acpi-20030916-2.4.22.diff' and the capitalized files, and directories:
-/debian/ -- buildinfo, changelog, control, files, rules
-/include/ -- linux, asm-i386 and 6 other dirs full of .h files
-/scripts/ -- 30-ish .pl .tk .c .h and other files
Is that what I should be seeing?
Anyway, the result of 'make-kpkg modules-image' is still the same.
>
> It seems strange, but if that is so I would check that
> /usr/src/modules contains your modules you are trying to install.
I checked and they seem to me to be there. There
is /usr/src/modules/thinkpad/2.4/drivers/ containing a Makefile and
6 .c files and /usr/src/modules/thinkpad/2.4/include containing 8 .h
files, and similar for 2.2 and 2.6.
Also /usr/src/modules/thinkpad/debian/ containing some .sed files and
'buildpkg' and 'rules'. Does that sound right?
> If that is so, then I'm stumped.
Not half so stumped as I am :-(
--
richard
Reply to: