David Eastcott wrote:
 > On Thursday 19 September 2002 11:53 pm, you wrote:
 >
 >>On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 03:36:17PM +1000, John McQuillen wrote:
 >>
 >>>How about an explanation of what has changed in the packaging of the
 >>>kernel sources for 2.4.19?
 >>>
 >>>I for one would appreciate an understanding of why kernel-headers is no
 >>>longer required.
 >>
 >>You're getting such responses because you asked a question that has been
 >>covered many many many times on this list.  Check the archives before
 >>you post.  But read this thread and it will answer your question:
 >>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mandrake-cooker&m=101702020405529&w=2
 >
 >
 > Read through the thread,  understood the arguments for both sides, 
but it
 > still leaves one with a nagging concern that there may be a consistency
 > problem between the declarations in the header files for 2.4.18 and 
2.4.19.
 >
 > dave

Someone in this thread says that they are the same headers. That is not
true, otherwise these headers would be updated every time the
kernel-source was updated.

But, I have tried to build NVIDIA_kernel with just kernel-headers
installed (and as reported on this list, I get unresolved symbols), but
now if I install the kernel-source, besides whining about it directly
including kernel source headers, it compiles without problems.

So this leads to two conclusions:

Either the kernel-headers are somewhat incompatible with the actual
headers in kernel-source, or there is a bug in the NVIDIA_kernel RPM
where it's including the headers from the wrong kernel (i.e. some other
(custom) kernel source I may have had in /usr/src/linux).

But I didn't get much sleep last night, so right now I am too tired to
figure out which.

-- 
Sincerely,

David Walluck
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Attachment: nsmail.tmp
Description: PGP signature

Attachment: msg75930/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to