David A Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DAR> On 14 Dec 2000, David Z Maze wrote: DZM> Christoph Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: CS> It seems that kernels and the alsa driver like to live in CS> certain directories. I assume here, you do have the kernel CS> sources comiled and installed (BTW, why aren't you using the CS> latest?). The kernel sources should be in CS> "/usr/src/linux-<version>"; then, there should be a link CS> "/usr/src/linux" just to that directory. DZM> DZM> This isn't necessary (and is arguably a poor idea) under Debian. DAR> DAR> OK. I'll bite. Do you think it's a bad idea to have the kernel DAR> sources under /usr/src, or bad to have a soft link from DAR> /usr/src/linux to the kernel source base dir? And why is it bad?
I don't think it's necessarily a poor idea to have source under /usr/src, but my understanding is that everything under /usr with the exception of everything under /usr/local is in the realm of dpkg. This policy suggests that builds should happen in places other than /usr/src. In turn, this philosophy conflicts with current practice WRT kernel modules. <shrug> Creating the symlink in /usr/src/linux probably *is* a bad idea. I have three different kernel source trees on this machine; which one gets to be /usr/src/linux? What happens when you're trying to build modules if /usr/src/linux doesn't point where you want it to? make-kpkg deals with this effectively without trying to manage a symlink, which is useful. Looked at another way, creating the symlink now gives you two "blessed" sets of kernel includes, in /usr/include/linux and /usr/src/linux/include/linux, but it's possible for a particular build for *both* to be wrong. Adding confusion like this seems like poor policy. -- David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mit.edu/~dmaze/ "Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal." -- Abra Mitchell
