Re: RLIM_INFINITY inconsistency between archs

From: Thomas Molina (tmolina@home.com)
Date: Thu Jul 27 2000 - 13:32:39 EDT

  • Next message: Benson Chow: "2.4.0-testX and 2.3.99's... unmountable rootfs after all processes dead"

    On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:

    > I'd really, really, like some kind of convention that could be
    > standardized. It could be any one of
    >
    > /usr/src/linux
    > /lib/include/`uname -r`
    > ../linux
    >
    > (the last requires that pcmcia and Rocketport packages have to be in the
    > same top-level directory as the kernel source tree).
    >
    > I could live with any of these; as long as we all can agree on a single
    > convention, so that default is always right. If you don't like
    > /usr/src/linux because of the past history, and how user-mode packages
    > are using it incorrectly, let's create a new convention. I personally
    > think /lib/include (ala /lib/modules) is probably the best one but it
    > means dropping approxmiately 4 megabytes into /lib, which might cause
    > some problems for some partitioning schemes.

    IMHO, if we're going to "standardize" a place to put kernel sources I
    really dislike /lib/<anything>. My own preference would be
    /usr/local/linux. Linus doesn't like /usr/src/linux so that's probably
    dead. /lib doesn't seem like the right place; /usr/local looks like the
    best fit for a standard place.

    -
    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/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 13:39:02 EDT