On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 11:47:38AM -0500, Leif Delgass wrote: >On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, David Dawes wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 03:53:32PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: >> >On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 17:31, David Dawes wrote: >> >> Makefile.kernel was supposed to the a Makefile suitable for dropping >> >> into the kernel source tree's drivers/char/drm directory. It's never >> >> used directly from the XFree86 source tree, and that's probably why it >> >> is out of date. I don't know if there's any point keeping it around or >> >> not. >> > >> >Note that Makefile.kernel could (and probably _should_) be used even >> >when building as part of the XFree86 tree. The recommended way of >> >building Linux kernel modules which are shipped outside the kernel tree >> >is by running: >> > make -C $LINUX_SRC_DIR SUBDIRS=`pwd` modules >> > >> >That's just about the only way to get the CFLAGS and other stuff correct >> >for all versions of the kernel and all architectures. >> >> Is it safe these days to unconditionally use /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build >> for $LINUX_SRC_DIR? > >I think we should at least remove /usr/include/linux as a fallback path >for finding the kernel headers (TREE in Makefile.linux), and replace it >with a message about setting up the build symlink in /lib/modules (which >is done by 'make modules install' on any halfway-recent 2.4.x kernel, >afaik) or using 'make TREE=/path/to/kernel-src-tree/include.' I've seen a >few messages from users on the dri lists where the build tried to use the >glibc kernel headers and fails. Symlinking /usr/include/linux to the >source tree is now considered a no-no.
Do all the distros respect this now? If so, then yes. >> Will a single Makefile.kernel work for all versions of the kernel, >> and handle various incompatibilities that arise from time to time >> that the current Makefile.linux is forced to work around? >> >> If so, then that's definitely the way to go. I'd love to see >> something cleaner than what we currently have (the Makefile for >> the FreeBSD drm modules is very clean). >> >> David > >Personally, I like using Makefile.linux. I've never had any problems with >it, and it's easier to build the kernel modules from my XFree86/DRI build >tree than copying files to the kernel source tree. We're not suggesting that the build happen from within the kernel source tree. David was stating the recommended way for building modules outside of the kernel source tree. Our Makefile.linux isn't suitable for recent 2.5.x kernels. I'm not sure if a single Makefile.kernel will suit 2.4 kernels as well as new 2.5.x kernels. The Makefiles in the kernel source tree differ between the two but that doesn't necessarily mean that a single one that works for both isn't possible. David -- David Dawes Release Engineer/Architect The XFree86 Project www.XFree86.org/~dawes _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
