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

Tom Black tcblack at wireless111.net
Mon Apr 19 14:16:14 PDT 2004


Miguel Bazdresch wrote:
> * Tom Black <tcblack at wireless111.net> [2004-04-19 17:34]:
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> The problem is that there are (allegedly) packages that insist on
> looking for headers in /usr/src/linux. Some of those packages are broken
> and really should be using the kernel headers against which glibc was
> compiled.
> 
This Rumor is what caused me to go ahead and create the Symlink.  But 
the more I see it as a rumor the more I wonder if it's worth any 
potential trouble. So I guess that needs to be the question.
I realize there is a "potential" benefit to the link (Alleged broken 
packages) what are the "potential" problems?
If one outweighs the other clearly enough I'll kill it or keep it.
:-)

-- 
Thomas Black
Total Linux Newbie (But trying to cure it)
http://wr189.wireless111.com



More information about the lfs-support mailing list