On 27 Jul 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10007271222420.684-100000@wr5z.localdomain>
> By author: Thomas Molina <tmolina@home.com>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > IMHO, if we're going to "standardize" a place to put kernel sources I
> > really dislike /lib/<anything>. My own preference would be
> > /usr/local/linux. Linus doesn't like /usr/src/linux so that's probably
> > dead. /lib doesn't seem like the right place; /usr/local looks like the
> > best fit for a standard place.
> >
>
> You're kidding, right? /usr/local is BY DEFINITION full of
> non-standard stuff. Read the FHS (http://www.pathname.com/).
No I'm not kidding. Based on some comments by Linus earlier, he is
advocating putting the kernel source tree out of the way of glibc and
other "standard" development tools. /usr/local seems a better fit to me
than /lib/modules. According to FHS /lib is for essential shared
libraries and kernel modules. It also says one of the uses of
/usr/local is for local source code. It's also one of the few places
which shouldn't get clobbered in a system software upgrade.
It was an opinion; I'm expressing my 'druthers, if you will. I know
others don't agree. I see where it looks as if Linus is leaning towards
/lib/modules anyway, so I'll adapt. Or I'll be contrary and make
appropriate local changes in the source code. As long as Linus keeps it
as a self-contained entity it won't matter anyway.
-
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 - 21:00:26 EST