On Sunday 28 November 2004 19:25, Steven P. Donegan wrote: > Peter Svensson wrote: > >On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Brian West wrote: > >>I don't agree with this patch yet... It's the distro's fault for doing > >> this wrong and I don't feel we have to work around it. The few people I > >> talked to have Symlinks the "build" to /usr/src/linux or the like. Then > >> again I may be wrong anyone know what is the right(tm) thing to do here > >> is? > > > >Havn't 2.6 adopted the /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build/ convention or > >something similar? > > > >Not having any 2.6-based machines online at the moment I can not check. > >This is from memory compiling out-of-tree modules a while back. > > Well - if 2.6.etc did adopt this it isn't reflected in actual make/make > install world - i.e. nothing gets installed in /lib/modules/anywhere... > And this is with kernel source from kernel.org - not a distro-tweaked > source tree
2.6 did adopt it. Look at the target _modinst_: in the Linux top level Makefile. B _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
