Re: [PATCH 5/5] kbuild: external module build doc

Martin Schlemmer
2004-06-15T23:01:09Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1819 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 21:55, Sam Ravnborg wrote:

> > Sam, You don't seem to have any idea how much breakage you introduce if you
> > insist on redirecting the 'build' symlink from source tree to object tree.
>
> No - and I still do not see it. Please explain how we can be backward
> compatible when vendors start utilising separate directories for src and output.
>
> Anyway, after I gave it some extra thoughs I concluded that
> /lib/modules/kernel-<version>/ was the wrong place to keep
> info about where to src for a given build is located.
> This information has to stay in the output directory.
>
> So what I will implement is that during the kernel build process
> (not the install part) a symlink named 'source' is placed
> in the root of the output directory - and links to the root of
> the kernel src used for building the kernel.
>
> Then /lib/modules/kernel-<version>/build/source will be where
> the source is located.
> And /lib/modules/kernel-<version>/build will point to the output files.
>
> If the vendor does not utilise separate src and output directories
> they will point to the same directory.
> If the vendor utilises separate output and source directories
> then thay will point in two different places.
>

Please have a look at any package out there (or 99% of them) that need
to figure out where the kernel _source_ is ... they all use something
like:

KERNEL_SRC="/lib/modules/`uname -r`/build"

or

KERNEL_SRC="$(readlink /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build)"

If you now change it to /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build/source, many will
break (depending if they might try things like looking if /usr/src/linux
is around), and all will have to add _another_ kludge to figure things
out.

Its a bad idea IMHO.

Cheers,

--
Martin Schlemmer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]