This line, in the main Makefile, is commented:
export INSTALL_PATH=/boot
Why? It seems pointless, since almost everything has been for ages requiring
this settings, and distros' versions of installkernel have been taking an
empty INSTALL_PATH as meaning /boot for ages (for instance Mandrake). It's
maybe even mandated by the FHS (dunno).
Is there any reason I'm missing?
--
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 01:27:15AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> This line, in the main Makefile, is commented:
>
> export INSTALL_PATH=/boot
>
> Why? It seems pointless, since almost everything has been for ages requiring
> this settings, and distros' versions of installkernel have been taking an
> empty INSTALL_PATH as meaning /boot for ages (for instance Mandrake). It's
> maybe even mandated by the FHS (dunno).
>
> Is there any reason I'm missing?
Changing this may have impact on default behaviour of some versions of
installkernel.
If /boot is ok for other than just i386 we can give it a try.
Sam
>> This line, in the main Makefile, is commented:
>>
>> export INSTALL_PATH=/boot
>>
>> Why? It seems pointless, since almost everything has been for ages requiring
>> this settings, and distros' versions of installkernel have been taking an
>> empty INSTALL_PATH as meaning /boot for ages (for instance Mandrake). It's
>> maybe even mandated by the FHS (dunno).
FHS says that the kernel image can be in either / or /boot. However, older 386'
require that extra partition below 1024 cyls.
Plus, I am of the opinion that there should not be any files in /
(incircumventable exception are quota files); ls -l already shows 57 entries
for this machine's root dir.
>If /boot is ok for other than just i386 we can give it a try.
boot is always ok given that you copy the kernel from the source tree to <your
favorite destination> by hand.
Jan Engelhardt
--
Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung
Am Fassberg, 37077 Göttingen, http://www.gwdg.de
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 01:27:15AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
>
>>This line, in the main Makefile, is commented:
>>
>>export INSTALL_PATH=/boot
>>
>>Why? It seems pointless, since almost everything has been for ages requiring
>>this settings, and distros' versions of installkernel have been taking an
>>empty INSTALL_PATH as meaning /boot for ages (for instance Mandrake). It's
>>maybe even mandated by the FHS (dunno).
>>
>>Is there any reason I'm missing?
>
>
> Changing this may have impact on default behaviour of some versions of
> installkernel.
> If /boot is ok for other than just i386 we can give it a try.
>
Please note that there are cases where you build a kernel for machine x
on machine y. Which means: don't unconditionally uncomment this line.
--
Andreas Steinmetz SPAMmers use [email protected]
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 01:27:15AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> >
> > > This line, in the main Makefile, is commented:
> > >
> > > export INSTALL_PATH=/boot
> > >
> > > Why? It seems pointless, since almost everything has been for ages
> > > requiring this settings, and distros' versions of installkernel have been
> > > taking an empty INSTALL_PATH as meaning /boot for ages (for instance
> > > Mandrake). It's maybe even mandated by the FHS (dunno).
> > >
> > > Is there any reason I'm missing?
> >
> >
> > Changing this may have impact on default behaviour of some versions of
> > installkernel.
> > If /boot is ok for other than just i386 we can give it a try.
> >
>
> Please note that there are cases where you build a kernel for machine x on
> machine y. Which means: don't unconditionally uncomment this line.
>
Huh, in that case wouldn't you just copy the kernel image from the source
dir on machine y to whereever it needs to liveon machine x by hand? At
least that's what I do, the Makefile and its INSTALL_PATH never comes into
play then.
--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
>
>
>>Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 01:27:15AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This line, in the main Makefile, is commented:
>>>>
>>>>export INSTALL_PATH=/boot
>>>>
>>>>Why? It seems pointless, since almost everything has been for ages
>>>>requiring this settings, and distros' versions of installkernel have been
>>>>taking an empty INSTALL_PATH as meaning /boot for ages (for instance
>>>>Mandrake). It's maybe even mandated by the FHS (dunno).
>>>>
>>>>Is there any reason I'm missing?
>>>
>>>
>>>Changing this may have impact on default behaviour of some versions of
>>>installkernel.
>>>If /boot is ok for other than just i386 we can give it a try.
>>>
>>
>>Please note that there are cases where you build a kernel for machine x on
>>machine y. Which means: don't unconditionally uncomment this line.
>>
>
> Huh, in that case wouldn't you just copy the kernel image from the source
> dir on machine y to whereever it needs to liveon machine x by hand? At
> least that's what I do, the Makefile and its INSTALL_PATH never comes into
> play then.
Not if you build different kernels for quite some machines on a build
system. It is neat then to use INSTALL_PATH and INSTALL_MOD_PATH to get
the build output into target machine related directories for further
automated processing.
What I just want to say is that, yes, set INSTALL_PATH (and
INSTALL_MOD_PATH) whereever you want to point it to - as long as it is
not already set.
--
Andreas Steinmetz SPAMmers use [email protected]
On Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 02:03:24PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> Please note that there are cases where you build a kernel for machine x on
> > machine y. Which means: don't unconditionally uncomment this line.
> >
> Huh, in that case wouldn't you just copy the kernel image from the source
> dir on machine y to whereever it needs to liveon machine x by hand? At
> least that's what I do, the Makefile and its INSTALL_PATH never comes into
> play then.
In scripting it's much easier to have:
make INSTALL_MOD_PATH=/nfs/frodo/ modules_install
make INSTALL_PATH=/nfs/frodo/ install
And everything 'just works'.
Sam
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
> Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 01:27:15AM +0100, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > This line, in the main Makefile, is commented:
> > > > >
> > > > > export INSTALL_PATH=/boot
> > > > >
> > > > > Why? It seems pointless, since almost everything has been for ages
> > > > > requiring this settings, and distros' versions of installkernel have
> > > > > been
> > > > > taking an empty INSTALL_PATH as meaning /boot for ages (for instance
> > > > > Mandrake). It's maybe even mandated by the FHS (dunno).
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there any reason I'm missing?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Changing this may have impact on default behaviour of some versions of
> > > > installkernel.
> > > > If /boot is ok for other than just i386 we can give it a try.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Please note that there are cases where you build a kernel for machine x on
> > > machine y. Which means: don't unconditionally uncomment this line.
> > >
> >
> > Huh, in that case wouldn't you just copy the kernel image from the source
> > dir on machine y to whereever it needs to liveon machine x by hand? At least
> > that's what I do, the Makefile and its INSTALL_PATH never comes into play
> > then.
>
> Not if you build different kernels for quite some machines on a build system.
> It is neat then to use INSTALL_PATH and INSTALL_MOD_PATH to get the build
> output into target machine related directories for further automated
> processing.
> What I just want to say is that, yes, set INSTALL_PATH (and INSTALL_MOD_PATH)
> whereever you want to point it to - as long as it is not already set.
Fair enough, I see your point.
--
Jesper Juhl