MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
To: Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc2 vdso_install breaks user "make install"
In-Reply-To: Rene Herman's message of  Saturday, 16 February 2008 04:31:54 +0100 <47B6592A.6030200@keyaccess.nl>
References: <47B6592A.6030200@keyaccess.nl>
Message-Id: <20080216034211.8DD03270193@magilla.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:42:11 -0800 (PST)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 970
Lines: 21

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
--
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/