ln -s linux.x.x.x linux or not?
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
>>I ultimately unpacked the bz2 linux kernal into /usr/src/linux-2.4.22
>>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
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.
Total Linux Newbie (But trying to cure it)
More information about the lfs-support