On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 05:47:09PM +0100, John Mylchreest wrote: > First of all, falling back on `uname -r` isn't going to happen for > several reasons. I can understand for some why this might seem sensible > (what happens if you remove your kernel sources for example). But the > fact remains that testing the currently running kernel is not a viable > option in my mind. Why? well, 1: the running kernel bares absolutely no > relevance on the environment which you're building this for. 2: you can > pass KERNEL_DIR manually, so if you refuse to work in the expected way > then set KERNEL_DIR to point to the right location.
People who prefer building against /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build/ can just set KERNEL_DIR=/lib/modules/`uname -r`/build/ and all will be dandy. I agree that the current solutions with /usr/src/linux and KERNEL_DIR overriding is the optimal solution - at least I have yet to hear about a better solution. Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd
pgpE3qRGV21lE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
