[gobolinux-users] Re: Kernel modules

Hisham Muhammad hisham.hm at gmail.com
Fri Aug 12 20:56:11 GMT 2005


On 8/12/05, Carlo Calica <ccalica at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/12/05, Hisham Muhammad <hisham.hm at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, the problem you're pointing out is relevant. I don't think it's
> > feasible to separate module and application builds in the general
> > case.
> > 
> > When the user installs a binary package that requires a kernel module
> > and they are using a custom kernel, they'll have to rebuild the whole
> > package. Not ideal, but it works.
> > 
> Ok.  I'd still like to see Recipe.kernel as an option.  Really need to
> track how many packages it'll be feasible.  And it can always be added
> in the future.
> 
> > I don't remember either. But for consistency, maybe we should start
> > putting kernel sources in /Files/Compile/Sources/linux-`uname -r`
> > always. In any case, modules should only look for the sources through
> > the /S/K/M/`uname -r`/build symlink.
> > 
> 
> As long as Compile can find it when needed.

Yes, what I meant is that we should not have things like

configure_options=(
   "--with-kernel-source=/Files/Compile/Sources/linux-`uname -r`"
)

in recipes. Actually, I think we need a special $kernel_sources
variable (since /S/K/M is special).

> > It's also possible to isolate the necessary headers and makefiles and
> > make a special tarball with that only for people who don't want to
> > spend 200MB(?) in kernel sources.
> 
> As long as "Compile Linux" works without problems.

Sure.

-- Hisham


More information about the gobolinux-users mailing list