I've bittorrented the few Slackware releases and it downloads just fine. I usually can get all four .iso files overnight. FTP is probably faster, but bittorrent is definitely easier on the mirrors.

These instructions date back to a time when kernel headers were kept under /usr/src/linux. This hasn't been true of Slackware for many years now. These days, kernel headers are kept under /usr/include.

Back when Linus wrote that spiel, the kernel source tarball would untar into a directory simply called 'linux' as opposed to the modern behaviour of untarring itself into a directory with the version number (eg: linux-2.6.17.11). Essentially, this meant that you couldn't keep more than one source tree under /usr/src.

Nowadays, we can keep as many different source trees as we want under /usr/src, and also because the glibc kernel headers are no longer kept under /usr/src/linux the whole argument about not using this area is moot.

All distros don't do as Slackware does, so it is not a moot point.

The instructions first appear in the kernel README file in 2.4.0.

Kernel headers are stored in /usr/include in every single modern distro, and it does not matter how a distro places it's header files, as for a very long time untarring the kernel source creates a /usr/src/linux-version instead of /usr/src/linux like it used to, so nothing can ever get overwritten by using /usr/src, except for previous kernel source directories(and then only the very exact same version).

You can safely build in /usr/src, and infact I am pretty sure it is strongly recommended to do so now too, because a lot of drivers search in /usr/src/ for the kernel source.

Hmm, I've been putting my updated kernel source code in my /home directory. I just checked and the 2.4.33.2 source is in /usr/src. And all the headers are 2.4.33.2. But my kernel is 2.6.17.7.

When I compile source code, everything seems to work all right. But is it?

And what would happen if I DID put the kernel source for 2.6 under /usr/src, but the header files were still 2.4???

--vonSt
PS: You want Slackware 2.6 headers? Look in the /extra/linux-2.6.17.11 directory! Of course, there's a warning that says "your OS may break," but if you want an ALL 2.6 version of Slackware...

I have been building kernels under /home for over 2 years now
and have never had one problem.

Oops, this time I wasn't clear....

When I compile source code for other applications, everything seems to work all right. I suppose, given what we've been discussing, if I don't change my /usr/src/linux-2.4 (and my headers are 2.4), then when I compile something like Timidity++, I'm really compiling it under 2.4! Right?

And then, the follow-on question is:

If I DO change to /usr/src/linux-2.6 (and my headers are 2.4). What do I get when I compile Timidity++?

--vonSt

One major problem with building in /home. Build and run your kernel, then delete the original source dir, then try and build an out-of-tree module. I'd rather be able to just let my kernel source sit in a generic spot, than to be forced into leaving my kernel source alone in /home.

This is a copy and paste from my response to this question. I think it relates to this discussion as well.

It's ok to get rid of the kernel headers GCC was compiled against, but you will need to recompile your "toolchain" as it's refered to in Linux From Scratch. If you build the source in your home directory, I'm pretty sure the link I refered to above will point to it. I'm npt sure since I build in /usr/src/. Maybe one of you home builders can confirm the link will point to whereever the source is built from when you do "make modules_install".

regards,
...drkstr


...drkstr

Wheter you change your /usr/src/linux-2.{4,6} is irrelevant for Timidity++, since it doesn't use the kernel source/headers at all (the most system-level thing it links against is glibc (obviously) and alsa-lib, if enabled). And even if it used them, it won't matter whether you change it at all.

The thing which matters is (are? I need to retake my english classes) the linux headers (/usr/include/linux, which in some distros used to be a symlink to /usr/src/linux/include, which is a terribly wrong idea), but they only matter to low level stuff which needs to comunicate directly with the kernel using structures (like glibc, or X).

So, unless you compile a lot of that stuff, changing the kernel headers will probably never get you in trouble (but that doesn't mean that is a good idea). And changing /usr/src/linux* won't (or at least shouldn't) affect anything at all.

i like to compile the kernel in /tmp, and then make a slackpack of it (and another for the modules)... as for the source, i also make a slackpack of that (right after compilation)... then i just upgradepkg all three of them...

That's a pretty heavy /tmp, and kind of breaks the rule of temp files as I understand it. /tmp is supposed to be able to be mounted tmpfs, where everything in /tmp dissappears when you reboot. Also, /tmp is a really insecure place to put something so critical like kernel source. Anybody might be able to modify the source to put in a backdoor while you are working on config and etc.

my /tmp doesn't use tmpfs, it's a regular sticky bit directory...

11 must realy be allmost ready, no changes, just bug fixes. I realy believe it will come out the same date previus did this time

2 more days and 10.2 will be 1 year old ...it will be nice to have 11 that day