On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 02:05:49PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > for some value of work. I can guarantee you that this will break within the > > > next half year or so. > > > > Can you explain that? > > > Not using the headers that *exactly match* the kernel binary is broken. > Rebuilding a lot of stuff from /usr/src/<anything> is not going to > guarantee that it's an EXACT match. > > > choice please don't break it. You would be removing appreciated added > > value and would piss off all kernel-level ISVs and repos including > > fedora.us. > > It's broken infrastructure and is using implementation details instead > of properly provided infrastructure. Those implementation details are > subject to change. I mean that. Let me repeat it one more time: > > If you don't use the headers that come with the kernel binary, things > will break, now or in the future. > > The fact that you could get away with it in the past does not mean that > it will remain working in the future. Is there something wrong with using the headers from make mrproper modify EXTRAVERSION in Makefile to reflect target arch/flavour cp -a configs/<my flavour and arch>.config .config make oldconfig_nonint x2 & make dep or make nonint_oldconfig & make prepare make -s include/linux/version.h These _are_ the headers matching the targeted arch/flavour combination w/o the need to build or even install/run the kernel itself. And it is not violationg rules or breaking anything. These are the usual steps required and recommended for building external kernel modules adapted to Red Hat/Fedora's kernel source mods (nonint and configs/ stuff). Would something break the above? It should not. At least there is no sign upstream considers changing kbuild again in this respect, and the rpms are under your control. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpj1OmH55JMj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
