On Sat, 2001-09-29 06:10:52 -0700, Jim Treadway <email@example.com>
wrote in message <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > On Sat, 2001-09-29 09:55:35 +0200, proton <email@example.com>
> > wrote in message <3BB57E77.4CDFF5D0@energymech.net>:
> > > Ofcourse, you cant unlink /dev/null unless you are root.
> > That's right and fine so far.
> > > In any case, the `gcc -o /dev/null' test cases probably
> > > need to go away.
> > No. Why? Well, the Linux kernel compiles just fine while
> > being an ordianary user. You don't have to be root to
> > compile it. As it's just bad to do usual *work* as root,
> > you're the bug.
> So then you can no longer 'make modules && make modules_install', or you
> have to cp or chown /usr/src/linux on a fresh install to compile your
> kernel? Doesn't sound pleasant to me.
You may do it this way:
make dep clean bzImage modules && su -c "make modules_install"
This is so far the minimal version for building as non-root user.
> I think the "trick" is to redirect stdout and stderr to /dev/null as well,
> so that /dev/null doesn't get removed from the file system since it is
> held open by the shell.
> Something like:
> gcc -o /dev/null -xc /dev/null /dev/null 2>&1
No-go. It's perfectly okay to remove an opened file. Test it yourself.
You may even replace a running (!) executable...
> Perhaps someone just forgot the I/O redirection in one of the tests?
No. It would be of no effect:-)
> However, I just compiled (but did not install) 2.4.10, as root, and my
> /dev/null still exists...
Fine:-) That's the way to go!
-- Jan-Benedict Glaw . firstname.lastname@example.org . +49-172-7608481 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 30 2001 - 21:01:09 EST