ln -s linux.x.x.x linux or not?
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
> 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)
> . .
> // \\
> /( )\
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
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