[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: toplevel Makefile bug and simple fix
Alan Cox wrote:
> > > I'm not convinced /usr/include/linux is sufficient. Perhaps we need
> > > a more explicit naming ?
> >
> > You are too brief - sufficient for what?
> For kernel modules you want
> <linux-versionnumber/foo.h>

Doesn't this imply maintainance nightmares for source which
includes foo.h? Or else more complexity in makefiles?

I find it convenient to use `ln -s /usr/src/linux-<version>
/usr/src/linux` with the customary symlinks in /usr/include.
A makefile need only
`ln -sf ...` to demand a version.

It's handy for patching, too.

OTOH I can see that someone more active than I might wish to
make several versions simultaneously.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean