Good day.
I have a ~/bin/installkernel which installs the kernel when I as user do a
make install at the end of compilation but 2.6.25-rc2 seems to break this:
rene@7ixe4:~/src/linux/local$ make V=1 install
make -f scripts/Makefile.build obj=arch/x86/vdso vdso_install
mkdir: cannot create directory `/lib/modules/2.6.25-rc2': Permission denied
How to fix?
Rene.
Perhaps it makes more sense to have vdso_install be a dependency of
modules_install rather than install, since they both put things in /lib/modules.
The installed vdso images are potentially useful for a kernel when you
aren't bothering to build or install any modules, but those images are only
ever useful for sophisticated debugging uses anyway.
Sam, any thoughts? (See arch/x86/Makefile and arch/powerpc/Makefile.)
The only kind of install runs I actually care about are for packaging
system builds. There the packaged build does 'make vdso_install'
explicitly anyway (at least Fedora rpms' .spec does). So if the consensus
is just to drop the dependency on vdso_install completely, I don't object.
Thanks,
Roland
On 16-02-08 04:42, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Perhaps it makes more sense to have vdso_install be a dependency of
> modules_install rather than install, since they both put things in
> /lib/modules.
Would work for me -- modules_install ofcourse runs as root.
> The installed vdso images are potentially useful for a kernel when you
> aren't bothering to build or install any modules, but those images are
> only ever useful for sophisticated debugging uses anyway.
>
> Sam, any thoughts? (See arch/x86/Makefile and arch/powerpc/Makefile.)
Or maybe update the installkernel "protocol" to add these in?
> The only kind of install runs I actually care about are for packaging
> system builds. There the packaged build does 'make vdso_install'
> explicitly anyway (at least Fedora rpms' .spec does). So if the
> consensus is just to drop the dependency on vdso_install completely, I
> don't object.
Did that for now...
Rene.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 07:42:11PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Perhaps it makes more sense to have vdso_install be a dependency of
> modules_install rather than install, since they both put things in /lib/modules.
> The installed vdso images are potentially useful for a kernel when you
> aren't bothering to build or install any modules, but those images are only
> ever useful for sophisticated debugging uses anyway.
>
> Sam, any thoughts? (See arch/x86/Makefile and arch/powerpc/Makefile.)
Installing the vdso files as aprt of modules_install would be
unintuitive as this has nothing to do with modules.
And since you wrote:
> useful for sophisticated debugging uses anyway
I suggest to make the vdso_install step independent as
in following patch.
[Note: help docs needs to mention the new target].
This solves the issue at ahnd and still gives us the posibility
to install the files should they be needed.
Sam
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Makefile b/arch/powerpc/Makefile
index 6845482..1c6ce35 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/Makefile
+++ b/arch/powerpc/Makefile
@@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ define archhelp
@echo ' *_defconfig - Select default config from arch/$(ARCH)/configs'
endef
-install: vdso_install
+install:
$(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=$(boot) install
vdso_install:
diff --git a/arch/x86/Makefile b/arch/x86/Makefile
index 204af43..f1e739a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/Makefile
+++ b/arch/x86/Makefile
@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ zdisk bzdisk: vmlinux
fdimage fdimage144 fdimage288 isoimage: vmlinux
$(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=$(boot) BOOTIMAGE=$(KBUILD_IMAGE) $@
-install: vdso_install
+install:
$(Q)$(MAKE) $(build)=$(boot) BOOTIMAGE=$(KBUILD_IMAGE) install
PHONY += vdso_install
On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 12:36:10PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 07:42:11PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Perhaps it makes more sense to have vdso_install be a dependency of
> > modules_install rather than install, since they both put things in /lib/modules.
> > The installed vdso images are potentially useful for a kernel when you
> > aren't bothering to build or install any modules, but those images are only
> > ever useful for sophisticated debugging uses anyway.
> >
> > Sam, any thoughts? (See arch/x86/Makefile and arch/powerpc/Makefile.)
>
> Installing the vdso files as aprt of modules_install would be
> unintuitive as this has nothing to do with modules.
>
> And since you wrote:
> > useful for sophisticated debugging uses anyway
> I suggest to make the vdso_install step independent as
> in following patch.
> [Note: help docs needs to mention the new target].
>
> This solves the issue at ahnd and still gives us the posibility
> to install the files should they be needed.
Roland - if you agree will you please submit the patch
to the x86 people.
You can tag it:
Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]>
or Acked-by: Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]>
as you like.
Sam
* Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Roland - if you agree will you please submit the patch
> to the x86 people.
> You can tag it:
> Signed-off-by: Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]>
> or Acked-by: Sam Ravnborg <[email protected]>
i've picked it up, thanks.
Ingo