On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 11:39:40AM -0700, David Lombard wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 12:18:42PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > > /lib/include and /lib/include/`uname -r`, if we all can agree on it as a
> > > standard, is as good as any.
> > >
> > > (Note that's not just the /lib/include/linux we would need symlinked; we
> > > would also need /lib/include/asm as well.)
> >
> > It's yust plain ugly.
> > a) they dont't have to be in the root filesystem
> > b) headers in <foo>/lib are plain ugly, too
> >
> > /usr/include/$(uname -a)/$(uname -r)
> >
> > would be much better an support propoer cross-compiling, too.
>
> I hope you don't really mean $(uname -a)! Along with its redundancy
> w.r.t. $(uname -r), it's needlessly specific and awful for parsing by
> the shell. Perhaps you meant the kernel architecture name, which is not
> available from uname(1).
I meant uname -m (utsname->machine).
> It would be great if people creating external kernel modules could do
> something like:
> a) assume their module directory is in the kernel's root directory and
> use relative paths.
hmm looks interesting.
Christoph
-- Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:00:24 EST