ln -s linux.x.x.x linux or not?
allard at nospam.nl
Mon Apr 19 14:54:26 PDT 2004
On Monday 19 April 2004 23:16, Tom Black wrote:
> Miguel Bazdresch wrote:
> > * Tom Black <tcblack at wireless111.net> [2004-04-19 17:34]:
> >>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.
My philosophy would go as such. You'll find out if you need it because some
package will complain, until then you don't need it. Potential problems? I
speak for myself here, I'm guaranteed to forget to relink it when upgrading
the kernel. I mentioned the /lib/modules/version/build link in another post,
my feeling is a link is asking for trouble. But then again, not everyone is
as vague at admin as I am. You should witness me filling in forms with blocks
on them - I go into a cold sweat and start hyperventilating, generally
procrastinate until I get a third reminder and then go in personally and ask
allard at quicknet.nl
More information about the lfs-support