kernel tree to /usr/src

(Cross-posted from lfs-automatic; I suggest to post
followups to lfs-devel)

Based on the following conversation on lfs-automatic, I ask
your opinion
about adding commands to LFS and CLFS books' kernel
compiling stanza
which save the kernel tree after the build to /usr/src,
similarly to the
HLFS build process.

The context could be provided for readers so they could know
that they
can safely skip this step. It would be beneficial for
automatic builds
(provided most jhalfs users prefer to keep a copy of the
kernel
tree around).

And anyway, it would be aesthetic to apply an uniform
approach for all
*LFS projects in a case which seems not to interfere with
the scopes
of the projects.

I'm sorry if I beat a dead horse, but the fact that there
is no consesus
here lets me imply that it's not the case.

On 2006-08-15, M.Canales.es <manuellinuxfromscratch.org>
wrote:
> El Martes, 15 de Agosto de 2006 16:33, Csaba Henk
escribió:
>
>> I find this annoying -- usually people keep around
kernel sources so
>> that they can compile third party stuff against it
or modules which were
>> disabled at the time of building the kernel image.
>
>> Could you have an option which implies that the
source tree won't be
>> deleted?
>
> That implies that the kernel sources should be moved to
/usr/src with the 
> right ownership. That is done only when building HLFS
due that the commands 
> to do that are actually in the book.
>
> If you can convince the LFS and CLFS teams to use
similar kernel build 
> instructions than HLFS, then jhalfs will keep the
kernel tree by default.

Yes, lets make a try then 

> Another option is to edit the Makefile to replace the
lines that deletes the 
> kernel tree by commands to place it elsewhere.

I'm interested in batch jhalfs builds. Patching/seding the
Makefiles
would be too hacky and fragile. It seems better then to opt
for skipping
the kernel build (at least, for this one there is a knob!)
and add a
separate kernel build script.

Csaba

-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discu
ss
FAQ: http://www.linux
fromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

On 8/15/06, Csaba Henk <csaba-mlcreo.hu> wrote:
> (Cross-posted from lfs-automatic; I suggest to post
followups to lfs-devel)
>
> Based on the following conversation on lfs-automatic, I
ask your opinion
> about adding commands to LFS and CLFS books' kernel
compiling stanza
> which save the kernel tree after the build to /usr/src,
similarly to the
> HLFS build process.

I would be happy to add instructions to save the kernel
source tree to
some location, but not /usr/src. This location implies a
really poor
practice of symlinking in /usr/include/linux to the current
kernels
headers. I know me, you, and most of the people that read
this post
know not to do that. But I'd rather guard against any LFS
newbie who
might be under the misguided impression that this is a good
idea. I've
built a handful of packages beyond BLFS that look for
/usr/src/linux*,
which shows this horrible notion is not dead.

So, I'd rather save the kernel source in another directory.
Maybe
/usr/share/linux. That's where I put them in my builds. You
can always
move the tree to whatever location is needed by another
package which
_really_ needs the kernel source.

--
Dan
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discu
ss
FAQ: http://www.linux
fromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page