Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:43:08 +0100
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
To: Blaisorblade <blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>
Cc: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default?
Message-ID: <20041121094308.GA7911@mars.ravnborg.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Blaisorblade <blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <200411160127.15471.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200411160127.15471.blaisorblade_spam@yahoo.it>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 860
Lines: 22

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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/