VMware with FC2T1
Robert P. J. Day
rpjday at mindspring.com
Wed Mar 10 14:45:26 UTC 2004
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Ben Steeves wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 10:15, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > is this different with 2.6? (sorry, i'm not at a system i can test this.)
> > are you saying that if i have no 2.6 kernel source tree, then the file
> > version.h will exist under /lib/modules? does that mean that build is no
> > longer a symlink? what's going on under that directory?
>
> As you say, build is no longer a symlink. I have the kernel package
> installed but *not* the kernel-source, and this is the layout of
> directories under /lib/modules:
>
> + 2.6.3-2.1.246
> |
> +-- build
> | |
> | +-- arch
> | +-- crypto
> | +-- drivers
> | +-- fs
> | +-- include
> | +-- init
> | +-- ipc
> | +-- kernel
> | +-- lib
> | +-- mm
> | +-- net
> | +-- scripts
> | +-- security
> | +-- sound
> | +-- usr
> | --- Makefile
<some stuff snipped here>
forgive me for beating on this, but i'm assuming that, if you've
installed just the binary 2.6 kernel rpm, then this "build" directory you
get is just to act as a kind of placeholder for the regular build symlink?
and it's going to emulate just enough of the kernel source tree to allow
folks to do stuff like including "include/linux/version.h"? perhaps
include files, or something like that -- obviously only a subset of the
original source tree.
and i'm assuming that, if you install a 2.6 kernel from source, "build"
goes back to being a symlink to the source tree? makes sense if that's
what's happening.
man, if i had a 2.6 system in front of me, i wouldn't be asking all
these questions.
rday
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list