VMware with FC2T1

[Anthony Joseph Seward]

On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 09:45 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

<snip>
> 
>   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.
> 

It has header files and the build system (the source in 'scripts' and
the Makefiles and Kconfig files).  Since the canonical location for the
kernel headers is /lib/modules, I think it is confusing to think of the
old symlink way of doing things as 'regular.'  It was an expediency.
The fact that source was also at the end of the symlink was ancillary.

>   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.
> 

Since I uninstalled the kernel-source rpm once I was told that it was
unnecessary for building external modules, I can't verify what I'm going
to hypothesize: take it as a test of the way I'm looking at the
situation.  I think that the kernel-source RPM puts the kernel source in
the /usr/src directory and doesn't bother with any symlinks.  If the
kernel-source rpm were to replace the files in /lib/modules with a
symlink then the rpm database would not reflect what is on the system.

>   man, if i had a 2.6 system in front of me, i wouldn't be asking all 
> these questions.
> 
> rday
> 
> 

Tony
-- 
Anthony Joseph Seward <anthony.seward at ieee.org>