begin  quote
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:07:26 -0700
"C. Brewer" <cbrewer@stealthaccess.net> wrote:

> 

> > Curently my counterproposal is to actually have the usr/src/linux
> > symlink directed at the target kernel, and if that link isn't found,
> > assume that we want the running kernel instead, and repoint it at
> > lib/modules/`uname -r`/build
> >
> > Just because usr/src/linux is a symlink in our case, why is that
> > worse
> > than following and relying on the /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build
> >   symlink?  The name?  if that's the case, we could well make the
> > symlink named "Target" and instead just confuse people more.
> 


> Okay, but your counterproposal would be flawed as well, because as you
> pointed  out, you don't always keep your sources, and without those
> /usr/src/linux  will point to nothing, as well as the
> /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build link. So  what happens when those both
> fail? Do we fake a dir in /usr/src, so at leats  one link works?

Considering that if you don't have a target for the modules, you don't
have source for it, it is bound to fail, so that is a non issue in
either case.  However, assuming that running kernel == target kernel is
a flawed idea and principle, as said, machines may not even boot without
adding said modules.




> > Yes, I'm of the old school ,  I -assume- that people who suggest a
> > way
> > of doing things, also have tried it themselves, or are capable of
> > implementing it.  When you don't have that situation, you get
> > "Designed
> > by Commite"  solutions that may sound good, but are in fact
> > unworkable.
> 
> But in order to try this myself (if I was capable), I would need to
> atleast  account for quite a few pieces of equipment that I don't
> currently own in  order to support all posible scenarios, of which I
> couldn't afford to do, nor  find storage for. In order to cover the
> most possible cases, we need "Design  by Committe" with the people
> using this equipment.

Why?   You don't need to own n(n) types of hardware to presume that
drivers built to a kernel may need to be avaiable in order for boot.
Thats a fairly safe presumption for many (pcmcia drivers is a great
example here), and testing to make sure that the idea is safe is merely
about thinking, not even testing to build. 


However, my argument still stands, running kernel should not be the same
as target kernel in any case.  No matter how you solve the situation you
will need a target kernel , even if target == uname -r.

This cuts it down to how to select where the target is, and for this, a
symlink is a very simple way of standardizing it that requires less
cutting into how building works. 


//Spider
  

-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end