Ian Jackson writes:
I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
I agree. My policy is: If the binaries are in /usr/local/bin, then
the sources go into usr/local/src. If the binaries are in /bin or
/usr/bin, then the sources go into /usr/src.
- Jim
Fabrizio Polacco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I recently managed to add some sources in my -dbg shared lib packages,
to make them easily debuggable. (See bug#16038 on 30 Dec)
I rather liked your solution to the problem of debuggable shared libs,
but you need to figure out a way to not need to be
On 8 Jan, Guy Maor wrote:
Fabrizio Polacco [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I recently managed to add some sources in my -dbg shared lib packages,
to make them easily debuggable. (See bug#16038 on 30 Dec)
I rather liked your solution to the problem of debuggable shared libs,
but you need to
Stephen Zander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I know, however it would allow people to much more easily install and
maintain their own kernel sources for these includes.
Surely if they're clever enough for that, they're clever enough to
override a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Stephen Zander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
I will also never feel comfortable with an automatic process editing my
lilo.config file.
I do agree on that... :)
I am set up to boot several linux partitions as well as
a dos partition and a loop-root system. I am much happier editing that
beast
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
I am set up to boot several linux partitions as well as
a dos partition and a loop-root system. I am much happier editing that
beast myself thankyou ;-)
A loop-root?
With a small patch to the kernel
[You (Dale Scheetz)]
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
A loop-root?
With a small patch to the kernel and some modification of the loop device
code, you can create a file-system-in-a-file.
You can do this already in stock debian (rex and hamm) with
mount -o loop -t fs file mount
Quoting Adam P. Harris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
[(Dale Scheetz)]
With a small patch to the kernel and some modification of the loop device
code, you can create a file-system-in-a-file.
You can do this already in stock debian (rex and hamm) with
mount -o loop -t fs file mount point
Why
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote:
[You (Dale Scheetz)]
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
A loop-root?
With a small patch to the kernel and some modification of the loop device
code, you can create a file-system-in-a-file.
You can do this already in stock debian
On 5 Jan, Christian Schwarz wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
I disagree.
/usr/local/src is for local admin.
This may be the case if you look at all packages, but I have never
installed any packages that did
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
On 5 Jan, Christian Schwarz wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
I disagree.
/usr/local/src is for local admin.
Indeed. In general:
- /usr/local is for the local
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
On 5 Jan, Christian Schwarz wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
I disagree.
/usr/local/src is for local
On Mon, Jan 05, 1998 at 05:48:27PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
I never understood why the kernel source was made into a .deb package. It
Because it's something we expect people will want to recompile,
so we should make it readily available to them.
doesn't make sense to me. I also don't see any
On Mon, Jan 05, 1998 at 11:54:14AM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why does libc6 depend on kernel-header ?
It's libc6-dev that has that dependency.
Perhaps weakening the dependency to Suggests might be the
Stephen Zander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why does libc6 depend on kernel-header ?
It's libc6-dev that has that dependency.
Perhaps weakening the dependency to Suggests might be the best solution.
No,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Regarding Re: What's Debian's /usr/src policy of 8:09 PM -0800 1/5/98,
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 1998 at 11:54:14AM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why does libc6
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Stephen Zander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why does libc6 depend on kernel-header ?
It's libc6-dev that has that dependency.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 05.01.98 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
I don't think kernel-{header,source}-x.xx.deb should exist, really,
because I don't think source code should be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Stephen Zander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why does libc6 depend on
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I think it does gain something; it is much easier to have multiple
versions around. If I compile a new 2.1 kernel and find that
it is not too good (like 2.1.76 seems to have broken sound
for me so I went back to 2.1.72), I can just reinstall the old
On 6 Jan 1998, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 05.01.98 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
I don't think kernel-{header,source}-x.xx.deb should exist, really,
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Mon, Jan 05, 1998 at 05:48:27PM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
I never understood why the kernel source was made into a .deb package. It
Because it's something we expect people will want to recompile,
so we should make it readily available to them.
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I will also never feel comfortable with an automatic process editing my
lilo.config file. I am set up to boot several linux partitions as well as
a dos partition and a loop-root system. I am much happier editing that
beast myself thankyou ;-)
Dale, I
On 6 Jan 1998, Rob Browning wrote:
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I will also never feel comfortable with an automatic process editing my
lilo.config file. I am set up to boot several linux partitions as well as
a dos partition and a loop-root system. I am much happier editing
Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I know, however it would allow people to much more easily install and
maintain their own kernel sources for these includes.
Surely if they're clever enough for that, they're clever enough to
override a Recommends (not a Suggests) heading. Maybe that
Dale Scheetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't see why not? Simply take the debian diffs and apply them against
*today's* kernel and you are off and running. The kernel file organization
hasn't changed in ages. (I hope that doesn't mean that someone will change
it simply because it is old and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Stephen Zander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 06.01.98 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 6 Jan 1998, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 05.01.98 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local
On Tue, Jan 06, 1998 at 04:11:57PM +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
I think it does gain something; it is much easier to have multiple
versions around. If I compile a new 2.1 kernel and find that
it is not too good (like 2.1.76 seems to have broken
On Tue, Jan 06, 1998 at 11:42:52AM -0500, Dale Scheetz wrote:
When I try a new kernel and it doesn't work, I only have to edit
lilo.config an run lilo to get back to the old one (actually I always
leave hooks in lilo to get back to the old kernel). No package
installation is required.
I
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hold on right there!! This is something indistinguishable from
magic!! kernel-headers installs files in
/usr/src/kernel-headers-X.X.XX. It never installs into
/usr/src/linux-* or usr/src/my-kernel-version. The postinst may
create the link,
I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
I don't think kernel-{header,source}-x.xx.deb should exist, really,
because I don't think source code should be distributed as .deb files
anyway. So I'm not unhappy about making a policy decision that leaves
kernel-{header,source}
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
I agree.
I don't think kernel-{header,source}-x.xx.deb should exist, really,
because I don't think source code should be distributed as .deb files
anyway. So I'm not unhappy about making a
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
Why? Could you please give a few arguments for that?
According to FSSTND and FHS:
``/usr/src: [...] Any non-local source code should be placed in this
subdirectory.''
[snip]
Manoj
Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why does libc6 depend on kernel-header ?
It's libc6-dev that has that dependency.
Perhaps weakening the dependency to Suggests might be the best solution.
No, you can't. Their are multiple header files that
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
I don't think kernel-{header,source}-x.xx.deb should exist, really,
because I don't think source code should be distributed as .deb files
anyway. So I'm not unhappy about making a policy
Dale Scheetz wrote:
I never understood why the kernel source was made into a .deb package. It
doesn't make sense to me.
I agree with this, I see nothing wrong with just having it available as a
source package, perhaps with kernel-package merged into it as the debian/
directory.
I also don't
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The vendor, I think. kernel-header-x.xx and kernel-source
packages have always assumed ownership of /usr/src; this is not a new
libc6 thing.
It's new for anyone who has never had kernel-headers and kernel-source
installed before now (because
On Dec 29, Rob Browning wrote:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The vendor, I think. kernel-header-x.xx and kernel-source
packages have always assumed ownership of /usr/src; this is not a new
libc6 thing.
It's new for anyone who has never had kernel-headers and
Hi,
Rob == Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rob Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The vendor, I think. kernel-header-x.xx and kernel-source packages
have always assumed ownership of /usr/src; this is not a new libc6
thing.
Rob It's new for anyone who has never had
On 29 Dec 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
I think you overlooked part of my post. I mentioned that *I* had
created /usr/src/linux as a link to /usr/src/linux-my-kernel-version.
Then when I installed kernel-headers (because the new libc6-dev made
me), kernel-headers saw the link, decided it was OK,
Isn't there something *else* going on here as well? Namely, why does
libc6-dev suddenly want kernel-headers, and a particular version at
that, when neither it nor libc5-dev ever did before (and for
good reasons?)
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Browning) wrote on 29.12.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find this hard to believe. kernel-headers and kernel-source
packages write to the directories kernel-headers-X.X.XX and
kernel-source-X.X.XX. They create symbolic
Hi,
Christoph == Christoph Lameter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Christoph I want to be able to change the kernel-headers a program is
Christoph compiled with. Certain tools (especially in 2.1.X) are
Christoph dependant on a certain kernel version. Nothing wrong with
Christoph providing the default
---Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, the kernel header files are getting to be quite
architecture dependent, and hence if libc development packages
continued to include kernel headers explicitly, we would need
different headers for different architectures,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) wrote on 31.12.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Isn't there something *else* going on here as well? Namely, why does
libc6-dev suddenly want kernel-headers, and a particular version at
that, when neither it nor libc5-dev ever did before (and for
good reasons?)
On 26 Dec 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
The question is, who owns /usr/src, Debian or the local sysadmin?
I'm not the official word on this but I think Debian owns everything but
/usr/local (in which it can only make a directory). There are exceptions
if your directory isn't in the file system
Along with this, in the similar thread, I think we should set aside a
place in our /usr/src/ for the building of Debian packages, using
`cvs-buildpackage'. (which I promise to _try_ and grok this week.)
How about... /usr/src/debian/{build,work}?
It would be good to put into policy a naming
Hi,
Rob == Rob Browning [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rob The question is, who owns /usr/src, Debian or the local
Rob sysadmin?
Rob A recent run-in with the latest pre-release libc6 packages made
Rob me realize that I hadn't fully considered the role of /usr/src on
Rob a Debian system.
The
50 matches
Mail list logo
