VMware with FC2T1

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Ben Steeves wrote:

> On Wed, 2004-03-10 at 10:15, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
> > is this different with 2.6?  (sorry, i'm not at a system i can test this.)
> > are you saying that if i have no 2.6 kernel source tree, then the file 
> > version.h will exist under /lib/modules?  does that mean that build is no 
> > longer a symlink?  what's going on under that directory?
> 
> As you say, build is no longer a symlink.  I have the kernel package
> installed but *not* the kernel-source, and this is the layout of
> directories under /lib/modules:
> 
> + 2.6.3-2.1.246
> |
> +-- build
> |   |
> |   +-- arch   
> |   +-- crypto   
> |   +-- drivers 
> |   +-- fs
> |   +-- include   
> |   +-- init
> |   +-- ipc   
> |   +-- kernel   
> |   +-- lib 
> |   +-- mm
> |   +-- net
> |   +-- scripts
> |   +-- security
> |   +-- sound
> |   +-- usr
> |   --- Makefile

<some stuff snipped here>

  forgive me for beating on this, but i'm assuming that, if you've
installed just the binary 2.6 kernel rpm, then this "build" directory you
get is just to act as a kind of placeholder for the regular build symlink?
and it's going to emulate just enough of the kernel source tree to allow
folks to do stuff like including "include/linux/version.h"?  perhaps 
include files, or something like that -- obviously only a subset of the 
original source tree.

  and i'm assuming that, if you install a 2.6 kernel from source, "build" 
goes back to being a symlink to the source tree?  makes sense if that's
what's happening.

  man, if i had a 2.6 system in front of me, i wouldn't be asking all 
these questions.

rday