On Sun, 12 Nov 2006, Marcus Watts wrote:
In fact, the Makefile they do include is not what ships with 2.6,
and looks amazingly wimpy... Oh my. Wow. What they ships
has these lines in Makefile:
KERNELSRC := ../../../linux-2.6.5-7.282
...
$(MAKE) -C $(KERNELSRC) O=$(KERNELOUTPUT)
which basically means there's a whole another layer of indirection going
on here, and the *REAL* kernel source lives somewhere else entirely
different (and also means if you don't have *THAT* you can't build modules.)
This looks a *lot* like what you get when building a vanilla kernel out of
its source tree, and there is no real problem with that (except configure
does not recognize it as a 2.6 tree, see the small patch I posted a few
days ago).
Mind you, I do have some fairly crazy experimental logic to chase down
kernel build flags in 2.4 by using a variation on the kernel build
process to make it cough up the compiler options being used.
Did you have to do something special with these flags, or was it just
needed for build? Because I think that, back when I was building against
2.4 trees, there was a build method for modules that was very similar to
what we have now on 2.6 (and the build flags ended up in a file).
The most reliable way I know to determine linux version number
is to try building this:
Yes that's reliable, but if a simpler test is good enough (eg. a certain
file or directory exists), it might be nice to save some time (I'm not a
fan of configures that take ages to complete, they are CPU- and IO-hungry,
and not parallelizable).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
