Khali's point about having i2c and lm_sensors be the same is well taken. I don't really see why the "default" kernel would be different than the "running" kernel. But I think that /lib/modules/uname-r/build is more likely to be correct than /usr/src/linux and so is a better choice. That's why I liked the patch. But just my opinion. Dave, we've been searching for someone to generate current RPM's and improve our RPM support for quite a while. Be glad to have you do it if you are willing. mds Dave Johnson wrote: > > At this point, I'm not fond of either approach... they each work better > in some situations than in others. If someone familiar with autoconf > and the like would be able to "autoconfiscate" the lm_sensors build, the > choice of which kernel to reference could be parametrized. I'm thinking > somewhere along the lines of "--use-running-kernel" and/or "--with-linux=...", > where the default would be /usr/src/linux[-2.4], running-kernel would be > /lib/modules/$(shell uname -r)/build, and --with-linux= would be specific > where the kernel sources are. It's already possible to handle the default > and --with-linux just by putting "LINUX=/blah/de/blah" on the make command > line, but the running-kernel (or running-linux for consistency) would be > a useful shorthand. > > A good generic rpm lm_sensors2.spec file would also be nice. We're using > the NPACI Rocks cluster software collection, and for kernel-dependent > modules, the source rpm files found in specific SRPMS directories are > automatically rebuilt when a cluster slave node is reinstalled. I'd > like to be able to do this with lm_sensors as well. Autoconf would be > nice but not necessary in this case, since environment variables can be > set up in the .spec file to override the defaults in the Makefile. > > Right now, my highest priority is getting cluster nodes up and running. > But if I get to it before anyone else, I might take a stab at the .spec file. > We have two clusters that are being converted to Rocks, and three new clusters > ready or nearly ready to have the Rocks software installed from scratch. > > -- ddj > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 02:51:13PM +0200, Khali wrote: > > > > > Modified Files: > > > Makefile > > > Log Message: > > > (mds) take LINUX from /lib/modules/x.x.x/build; patch from > > > Dave Johnson <ddj at cascv.brown.edu> > > > > Hmmm... > > This isn't that clear to me. > > > > While the new way (/lib/modules/$(shell uname -r)/build) ensures we are > > compiling the modules for the current kernel, the old way (/usr/src/linux) > > allowed one to compile the modules for the default kernel, whatever the current > > kernel is. > > > > As far as I'm concerned, I prefer the old way. I happen to change kernel > > versions quite often (testing both ACPI and CPUFreq on my system) and have to > > reconfigure and reinstall i2c and lm_sensors everytime. Using /usr/src/linux as > > the default, I am able to do so *before* I actually reboot on the new kernel. > > With the new way, I would have to do the same *after* the reboot. > > > > I would be pleased to listen to arguments in favor of the new way. > > > > Anyway, whatever we decide, I think that we should do the same in i2c and > > lm_sensors (which isn't the case right now). > > > > Later, > > Khali
