lm_sensors2 Makefile

Mark D. Studebaker mds at paradyne.com
Sat Oct 12 01:28:55 CEST 2002


Khali's point about having i2c and lm_sensors be the same is well taken.

I don't really see why the "default" kernel would be different than the
"running"
kernel. But I think that /lib/modules/uname-r/build is more likely to be
correct
than /usr/src/linux and so is a better choice. 
That's why I liked the patch. But just my opinion.

Dave, we've been searching for someone to generate current RPM's and
improve
our RPM support for quite a while. Be glad to have you do it if you are
willing.

mds


Dave Johnson wrote:
> 
> At this point, I'm not fond of either approach... they each work better
> in some situations than in others.  If someone familiar with autoconf
> and the like would be able to "autoconfiscate" the lm_sensors build, the
> choice of which kernel to reference could be parametrized.  I'm thinking
> somewhere along the lines of "--use-running-kernel" and/or "--with-linux=...",
> where the default would be /usr/src/linux[-2.4], running-kernel would be
> /lib/modules/$(shell uname -r)/build, and --with-linux= would be specific
> where the kernel sources are.  It's already possible to handle the default
> and --with-linux just by putting "LINUX=/blah/de/blah" on the make command
> line, but the running-kernel (or running-linux for consistency) would be
> a useful shorthand.
> 
> A good generic rpm lm_sensors2.spec file would also be nice.  We're using
> the NPACI Rocks cluster software collection, and for kernel-dependent
> modules, the source rpm files found in specific SRPMS directories are
> automatically rebuilt when a cluster slave node is reinstalled.  I'd
> like to be able to do this with lm_sensors as well.  Autoconf would be
> nice but not necessary in this case, since environment variables can be
> set up in the .spec file to override the defaults in the Makefile.
> 
> Right now, my highest priority is getting cluster nodes up and running.
> But if I get to it before anyone else, I might take a stab at the .spec file.
> We have two clusters that are being converted to Rocks, and three new clusters
> ready or nearly ready to have the Rocks software installed from scratch.
> 
>         -- ddj
> 
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 02:51:13PM +0200, Khali wrote:
> >
> > > Modified Files:
> > >     Makefile
> > > Log Message:
> > > (mds) take LINUX from /lib/modules/x.x.x/build; patch from
> > >       Dave Johnson <ddj at cascv.brown.edu>
> >
> > Hmmm...
> > This isn't that clear to me.
> >
> > While the new way (/lib/modules/$(shell uname -r)/build) ensures we are
> > compiling the modules for the current kernel, the old way (/usr/src/linux)
> > allowed one to compile the modules for the default kernel, whatever the current
> > kernel is.
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned, I prefer the old way. I happen to change kernel
> > versions quite often (testing both ACPI and CPUFreq on my system) and have to
> > reconfigure and reinstall i2c and lm_sensors everytime. Using /usr/src/linux as
> > the default, I am able to do so *before* I actually reboot on the new kernel.
> > With the new way, I would have to do the same *after* the reboot.
> >
> > I would be pleased to listen to arguments in favor of the new way.
> >
> > Anyway, whatever we decide, I think that we should do the same in i2c and
> > lm_sensors (which isn't the case right now).
> >
> > Later,
> > Khali



More information about the lm-sensors mailing list