Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default?

[Jan Engelhardt]

>> 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 fÃr Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung
Am Fassberg, 37077 GÃttingen, www.gwdg.de
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/