Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default?

[Jesper Juhl]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Andreas Steinmetz wrote:

> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> Please note that there are cases where you build a kernel for machine x on
> machine y. Which means: don't unconditionally uncomment this line.
> 
Huh, in that case wouldn't you just copy the kernel image from the source 
dir on machine y to whereever it needs to liveon machine x by hand? At 
least that's what I do, the Makefile and its INSTALL_PATH never comes into 
play then.


--
Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@xxxxxx>



-
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/