> people), but the decision has been made.
>
> Note, though, that it is **very** important that /usr/include/linux and
> /usr/include/asm correspond to the default kernel that you are booting.
Ted, you are assuming people will build stuff on the machine they are
running from. Its certainly a convenient assumption for the majority
of uses but a lot of big have all their kernel building/images in one
place not around machines.
I'm not convinced /usr/include/linux is sufficient. Perhaps we need
a more explicit naming ?
I agree that for more complicated situations you will need to have a way
of explicitly specifying which kernel source tree to find the right set
of include files. For those folks, forcing them to edit a Makefile or
change a config.mk to specify the correct header file seems acceptable
for me.
The vast majority of users won't be doing something this complicated,
and they are also the people for whom we should make the building and
installation experience as simple as possible. /usr/include/linux seems
to be as good a convention as any, as the default choice. We could
specify a new convention, but /usr/include/linux has the advantage that
it's true for most stock distributions already.
- Ted\
-
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/