ln -s linux.x.x.x linux or not?

Allard Welter allard at nospam.nl
Mon Apr 19 10:05:58 PDT 2004

On Monday 19 April 2004 16:35, Tom Black wrote:
> After reading through multiple faq's NG. postings in both LFS and other
> spots, I'm still unclear on if I should be creating or not creating a
> symbolic link to the Linux source.
> I'm currently in the lfs 5.0 book at
> http://lfs.crash404.com/lfs/view/stable/chapter06/kernel.html
> I ultimately unpacked the bz2 linux kernal into /usr/src/linux-2.4.22
> and ran
> ln -s linux-2.4.22 linux
> Please somebody tell me if that was the worst or best (or indifferent?)
> thing I could have done.
> --
> Thomas Black
> Total Linux Newbie (But trying to cure it)
> http://wr189.wireless111.com
>      ~
>     . .
>     /V\
>    // \\
>   /(   )\
>    ^`~'^


There really isn't any need to make a link in /usr/src. It's probably better 
not to. Firstly the includes have been copied into /usr/include and these are 
there to stay and are the ones used to compile glibc.

The reason you shouldn't link to /usr/src/linux IMO is that a link is made 
in /lib/modules/version/ to the kernel source. if you have several kernel 
versions around confusion may arise as to where this build link ought to 
point to.

I reiterate, the above is the way I see it, there are probably other reasons 
to do otherwise.


allard at quicknet.nl

More information about the lfs-support mailing list