lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.170 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site