>On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Vidiot wrote:
>> Wrong. No compiler building should require that kernel sources be installed.
>> Many things can be compiled that do not require the kernel sources. All of
>> the necessary include files for getting ANYTHING to compile should be
>> distributed as part of the system. Only stuff required for the kernel itself
>> should be part of the kernel sources.
>>
>The kernel headers files are needed to do things like talk to the
>operating system - things like file I/O, and knowing the size of things
>like intigers for the system you are compiling for. Considering that the
>same compiler can produce source for more then one processor, things like
>this are important. You can also change the header files that are used
>when you do things like cross compiling. You don't need to have the
>complete kernel source installed, but you do need the kernel headers
>installed if you plan on compiling anything that will run on the
>system. If you were compiling a stand alone program, you wouldn't need
>the kernel headers, but you would still need header files for the system
>you were planning to run the program on.
>Mikkel
Exactly. Which is why I am saying that they should be there as a default
install, which they currently are not.
MB
--
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bart: Hey, why is it destroying other toys? Lisa: They must have
programmed it to eliminate the competition. Bart: You mean like
Microsoft? Lisa: Exactly. [The Simpsons - 12/18/99]
Visit - URL:http://www.vidiot.com/ (Your link to Star Trek and UPN)
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
