Kernel upgrade usr/src/linux - Debian

This is a discussion on Kernel upgrade usr/src/linux - Debian ; Hi I have recently upgraded to a 2.6 kernel from a 2.4 one. I subsequently hit a number of problems with an external module that I need for my Conexant PCI ADSL card. One of the problems was that I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Kernel upgrade usr/src/linux

  1. Kernel upgrade usr/src/linux

    Hi

    I have recently upgraded to a 2.6 kernel from a 2.4 one. I subsequently
    hit a number of problems with an external module that I need for my
    Conexant PCI ADSL card. One of the problems was that I had
    usr/src/linux still symlinked to to the 2.4 kernel-source.

    It would have helped me if. under Chapter 5 - Issues to be aware of for
    sarge in the Release Notes for Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 (`sarge') that there
    was a note to the effect that usr/src/linux needs to be deleted and
    replaced by a symlink to the 2.6 kernel-source, e.g.

    ln -s /usr/src/linux-2.6.14.2 /usr/src/linux

    I hope you will include this and save someone else having to find it out
    themselves!

    John Talbut


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  2. Re: Kernel upgrade usr/src/linux

    John Talbut wrote:
    > Hi
    >
    > I have recently upgraded to a 2.6 kernel from a 2.4 one. I subsequently
    > hit a number of problems with an external module that I need for my
    > Conexant PCI ADSL card. One of the problems was that I had
    > usr/src/linux still symlinked to to the 2.4 kernel-source.
    >
    > It would have helped me if. under Chapter 5 - Issues to be aware of for
    > sarge in the Release Notes for Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 (`sarge') that there
    > was a note to the effect that usr/src/linux needs to be deleted and
    > replaced by a symlink to the 2.6 kernel-source, e.g.
    >
    > ln -s /usr/src/linux-2.6.14.2 /usr/src/linux
    >
    > I hope you will include this and save someone else having to find it out
    > themselves!


    ISTR the kernel-source or kernel-package README.Debian suggests that use
    of /usr/src/linux is not encouraged, and should not be created in the
    first place.

    If you think that this is an issue, please raise an appropriate bug report.


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  3. Re: Re: Kernel upgrade usr/src/linux

    The stricture in kernel-source-2.6.8/README (there does not seem to be a
    reference to this in README.debian) reads:

    "- If you install the full sources, put the kernel tarball in a
    directory where you have permissions (eg. your home directory) and
    unpack it:

    gzip -cd linux-2.6.XX.tar.gz | tar xvf -

    Replace "XX" with the version number of the latest kernel.

    Do NOT use the /usr/src/linux area! This area has a (usually
    incomplete) set of kernel headers that are used by the library header
    files. They should match the library, and not get messed up by whatever
    the kernel-du-jour happens to be."

    As I understand it, that means do not put sources in /usr/src/linux.
    However, it seems that a lot of applications expect to find something at
    /usr/src/linux. Symlinking it to the actual source seems to satisfy
    that expectation whilst complying with the stricture by not actually
    putting anything in it.

    I did in fact have various old files in /usr/src/linux and I could have
    done with some reassurance that it was OK to delete it all and replace
    it with the symlink (well, it seems to have been).

    So I do not know if there is an issue here, do I need to raise a bug
    report in order to get some additional explanation in the release notes?


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  4. Re: Kernel upgrade usr/src/linux

    John Talbut wrote:
    > The stricture in kernel-source-2.6.8/README (there does not seem to be a
    > reference to this in README.debian) reads:
    >
    > "- If you install the full sources, put the kernel tarball in a
    > directory where you have permissions (eg. your home directory) and
    > unpack it:
    >
    > gzip -cd linux-2.6.XX.tar.gz | tar xvf -
    >
    > Replace "XX" with the version number of the latest kernel.
    >
    > Do NOT use the /usr/src/linux area! This area has a (usually
    > incomplete) set of kernel headers that are used by the library header
    > files. They should match the library, and not get messed up by whatever
    > the kernel-du-jour happens to be."
    >
    > As I understand it, that means do not put sources in /usr/src/linux.
    > However, it seems that a lot of applications expect to find something at
    > /usr/src/linux.


    Not Debian applications AFAIK. Also, from
    /usr/share/doc/kernel-package/README.gz :
    | To use this package to create kernel-image packages, you need to get
    | the kernel source (available from your favorite Linux archive),
    | unpack your kernel somewhere. Preferably somewhere other than
    | /usr/src/linux (more on this later).

    (I assume you are using kernel-package to build your kernel.)

    > Symlinking it to the actual source seems to satisfy
    > that expectation whilst complying with the stricture by not actually
    > putting anything in it.


    AIUI (and I apologise for the high acronym ratio), the user is meant to
    leave all management of /usr to dpkg, excluding /usr/local. Again, I
    have no reference to hand, although Martin Krafft mentions it in his book.

    > I did in fact have various old files in /usr/src/linux and I could have
    > done with some reassurance that it was OK to delete it all and replace
    > it with the symlink (well, it seems to have been).
    >
    > So I do not know if there is an issue here, do I need to raise a bug
    > report in order to get some additional explanation in the release notes?


    If you feel the release notes are incomplete, then a bug report is
    probably the way to go (preferably with a patch . But please bear in
    mind the above.


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  5. Re: Kernel upgrade usr/src/linux

    Antony Gelberg wrote:

    >Not Debian applications AFAIK. Also, from

    /usr/share/doc/kernel-package/README.gz :
    >| To use this package to create kernel-image packages, you need to get
    >| the kernel source (available from your favorite Linux archive),
    >| unpack your kernel somewhere. Preferably somewhere other than
    >| /usr/src/linux (more on this later).


    Which is precisely what I have done.

    >the user is meant to leave all management of /usr to dpkg, excluding

    /usr/local. Again, I have no reference to hand, although Martin Krafft
    mentions it in his book.

    Unfortunately I am stuck with a non-Debian module that makes calls to
    /usr/src/linux. I get the impression that this is likely to be fairly
    common for Debian users who need to use some non Debian software.
    Making /usr/src/linux a symlink seems to satisfy the "foreign" software
    without putting any files where they should not be.

    >If you feel the release notes are incomplete, then a bug report is

    probably the way to go (preferably with a patch)

    I have done so.


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  6. Re: Kernel upgrade usr/src/linux

    On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 10:18:50PM +0000, John Talbut wrote:
    > Antony Gelberg wrote:
    > >the user is meant to leave all management of /usr to dpkg, excluding

    > /usr/local. Again, I have no reference to hand, although Martin Krafft
    > mentions it in his book.
    >
    > Unfortunately I am stuck with a non-Debian module that makes calls to
    > /usr/src/linux. I get the impression that this is likely to be fairly
    > common for Debian users who need to use some non Debian software.
    > Making /usr/src/linux a symlink seems to satisfy the "foreign" software
    > without putting any files where they should not be.


    Yes to "Fairly common *user* issue" :-)

    > >If you feel the release notes are incomplete, then a bug report is

    > probably the way to go (preferably with a patch)
    >
    > I have done so.


    That did not work as I see.

    I think the "software" you are talking is not binary but source file.
    Then you are expected to do minimal changes before compiling.

    Here is quote from somewhat outdated but still useful document called
    "Debian Reference" which is meant to provide novice user with guide to
    get used to Debian system after installation. Release note is not place
    for this kind of contents.

    ------

    7.1.3 Kernel headers

    Most "normal" programs don't need kernel headers and in fact may break
    if you use them directly; instead they should be compiled against the
    headers with which glibc was built, which are the versions in
    /usr/include/linux and /usr/include/asm of the Debian system.

    So do not put symlinks to the directories in /usr/src/linux from
    /usr/include/linux and /usr/include/asm, as suggested by some outdated
    documents.

    If you need particular kernel headers for some kernel-specific
    application programs, alter the makefile(s) so that their include path
    points to dir-of-particular-kernel-headers/include/linux and
    dir-of-particular-kernel-headers/include/asm.

    Cheers,

    Osamu


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

+ Reply to Thread