This is part of The Pile, a partial archive of some open source mailing lists and newsgroups.
Subject: Re: kernel headers missing From: Statux <statux@bigfoot.com> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 22:03:07 -0400 (EDT) I don't see the kernel headers for kernel 2.2.16-3 in Rh7 listing of files. > All I see is 2.4 kernel headers. Will kernel 2.2.16-3 compile with kernel > headers 2.4 ? No. Kernel headers are pulled from the include directories from the kernel source tree. If you have kernel 2.2.16-3, then you need the 2.2.16-3 headers. RH seperates the headers from the rest of the kernel stuff because some programs compile against them (such as NASM). I, personally, always have the source tree (from tarball format) located at /usr/src/linux (unarchived of course). RPM, in my opinion, really sucks when it comes to the kernel... that's why I don't use it in such a case. Having the source tree there take care of things like the kernel headers, etc... and since I like to be able to compile a kernel to suit my system.. well you know what I'm saying :) -Statux === Subject: Re: kernel headers missing From: Thornton Prime <thornton@cnation.com> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 19:19:31 -0700 (PDT) On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Statux wrote: > > I don't see the kernel headers for kernel 2.2.16-3 in Rh7 listing of files. > > All I see is 2.4 kernel headers. Will kernel 2.2.16-3 compile with kernel > > headers 2.4 ? > > No. Kernel headers are pulled from the include directories from the kernel > source tree. If you have kernel 2.2.16-3, then you need the 2.2.16-3 > headers. RH seperates the headers from the rest of the kernel stuff > because some programs compile against them (such as NASM). Apparently, there have been raging arguments about kernel headers vs. kernel source on the kernel mailing lists, and the consensus is that people should have the kernel-headers that match the version of kernel-headers that were used to compile glibc. RedHat's glibc is '2.4 ready' which I'm guessing means that it was compiled aainst 2.4 kernel headers. The kernel source tarball (or kernel-sources rpm) includes the headers for the same version, so you don't need to worry about accidentally compiling a kernel against the wrong version of kernel-headers. > I, personally, always have the source tree (from tarball format) located > at /usr/src/linux (unarchived of course). RPM, in my opinion, really sucks > when it comes to the kernel... that's why I don't use it in such a > case. Having the source tree there take care of things like the kernel > headers, etc... and since I like to be able to compile a kernel to suit my > system.. well you know what I'm saying :) I like compiling my own kernel too, and usually have a few kernel trees lying around on my systems, but I actually prefer to use the RedHat kernel-source RPM because it usually has a bunch of yummy patches, and generally good config settings. ===