Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:05:39 -0800 (PST) | From | ferret@phonewav ... |
| |
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > [ferret@phonewave.net] > > Do you have an alternative reccomendation? I've shown where the > > symlink method WILL fail. You disagree that having the configured > > headers copied is a workable idea. What else is there? > > 4.5 more megabytes, per kernel, on my root filesystem. (That's *after* > pruning the extra include/asm-*/'s.) Thanks but no thanks.
Yep. Did not occur to me at the time I asked. Someone else pointed this out to me also. VERY good point, but still needed to be explicitely mentioned.
> Symlinks fail only if you move or delete your tree. By doing that, you > have proven that you actually know what and where your kernel sources > are, which in turn is strong evidence that you are not in need of those > "External Module Compiling for Dummies" scripts.
I have not moved or deleted a tree. I do not HAVE a kernel tree in the first place. Therefore, nothing for the symlink to point to when I install the kernel.
> Conversely, by actually trusting a random script to compile an external > module unaided, the user is all but declaring himself incapable of > messing around with the /usr/src/linux that came pre-installed.
You are assuming there is a /usr/src/linux that came pre-installed. This is not a valid assumption.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |