Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:19:25 +0100 (MET) | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | Subject | Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default? |
| |
>> 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 für Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung Am Fassberg, 37077 Göttingen, www.gwdg.de - 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/
| |