![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/c49a1b37769784e302f9b6c2f15fb979.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Andre Heine wrote:
Dieses Verzeichnis sollte eigentlich ein _link_ auf /usr/src/linux/include/linux sein.
Ganz sicher nicht.
Ich habe es gelöscht und durch einen link ersetzt.(/usr/src/linux).
Es kann sonst zu einigen Problemen bei der Kompilation geben.
Und du hast Glueck wenn danach noch ein Programm uebersetzt werden kann. LFS Chapter 5 (Linux from Scratch) http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/view/3.3/chapter05/kernel.html (Paste aus Googles Cache) Why we copy the kernel headers and don't symlink them In the past, it was common practice for people to symlink the /usr/include/linux and asm directories to /usr/src/linux/include/linux and asm respectively. This is a bad idea as this extract from a post by Linus Torvalds to the Linux Kernel Mailing List points out: "I would suggest that people who compile new kernels should: - not have a single symbolic link in sight (except the one that the kernel build itself sets up, namely the "linux/include/asm" symlink that is only used for the internal kernel compile itself) And yes, this is what I do. My /usr/src/linux still has the old 2.2.13 header files, even though I haven't run a 2.2.13 kernel in a _loong_ time. But those headers were what glibc was compiled against, so those headers are what matches the library object files. And this is actually what has been the suggested environment for at least the last five years. I don't know why the symlink business keeps on living on, like a bad zombie. Pretty much every distribution still has that broken symlink, and people still remember that the linux sources should go into "/usr/src/linux" even though that hasn't been true in a _loong_ time." Peter