Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757857AbXJGXo7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Oct 2007 19:44:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756056AbXJGXow (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Oct 2007 19:44:52 -0400 Received: from smtp1.betherenow.co.uk ([87.194.0.68]:57897 "EHLO smtp1.bethere.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756053AbXJGXov (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Oct 2007 19:44:51 -0400 From: Alistair John Strachan To: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.23-rc9 and a heads-up for the 2.6.24 series.. Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 00:44:49 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: Sam Ravnborg , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton References: <20071005061106.GA27798@uranus.ravnborg.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200710080044.49883.alistair@devzero.co.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2253 Lines: 53 On Friday 05 October 2007 09:32:40 you wrote: > On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > cp: cannot stat `arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage': No such file or directory > > > > > > > > Obviously, this file has moved to arch/x86/boot, but it seems like > > > > possibly unnecessary breakage. I've been copying bzImage for years > > > > from arch/x86_64/boot, and I'm sure there's a handful of scripts > > > > (other than Debian's kernel-image) doing this too. > > > > > > > > For now, I hacked the tool[1]. Maybe, if we care, a symlink could be > > > > set up between arch/x86/boot and arch/$ARCH/boot ? Or would papering > > > > over this be more trouble than it's worth? > > > > > > yeah, a symlink is the right solution i think. Our first-step goal is > > > to make the switchover seamless for all practical purposes, and a > > > compatibility symlink in arch/i386/boot/ will not hurt. (we shouldnt > > > worry about the really old zImage target though) > > > > But when can we then get rid of it? > > This is a simple question about when we take the noise.. > > And right now people know we are shifting to x86 - so it makes > > sense to let the dependent userspace tools take the pain now and not > > later. > > > > Starting to fill up a build kernel with symlinks for compatibility with > > random progarms seems to be the wrong approach. > > > > Sam - that dislike especially the asm symlink > > Sam, > > I completely agree with you, but we want to keep the migration noise > as low as possible. Adding the symlink right now along with an entry > into features-removal.txt (6 month grace period) allows a smoother > transition. The distro folks should better get their gear together > until then. I'll certainly file a bug report with the Debian BTS, but the fix will probably involve something as abortive as my original patch. How did the PPC merge handle this? I can't see any similar hacks in kernel-image for these architectures. -- Cheers, Alistair. 137/1 Warrender Park Road, Edinburgh, UK. - 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/