In article >[email protected]>,
Richard B. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 31 Jul 2000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>> No. Even Linus himself has been saying for years (and recently even
>> in this thread) that /usr/include/linux and /usr/include/asm should
>> NOT EVER be symlinks to /usr/src/linux
>
>I don't think Linus said that at all.
That is the problem. Linus has been saying that for years, but
as I said, for some reason people refuse to listen. You're proving
my point.
>In fact, the first trees that
>Linus made and distributed were done this way and have become the
>de-facto standard as a result of this.
Read <[email protected]> in which Linus says:
>/usr/include/asm is a symlink to /usr/src/linux/include/asm, as in the
>original distribution but /usr/src/linux is a 2.4.0-testX tree.
>With a 2.2.X source tree, it does not produce any warning.
I've asked glibc maintainers to stop the symlink insanity for the last
few years now, but it doesn't seem to happen.
Basically, that symlink should not be a symlink. It's a symlink for
historical reasons, none of them very good any more (and haven't been
for a long time), and it's a disaster unless you want to be a C library
developer. Which not very many people want to be.
The fact is, that the header files should match the library you link
against, not the kernel you run on.
Also read <[email protected]>
for more enlightenment. If you want to join a thread, please make sure
that you have read all messages in it.
Mike.
--
Cistron Certified Internetwork Expert #1. Think free speech; drink free beer.