Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:03:24 +0100 (CET) | From | Jesper Juhl <> | Subject | Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default? |
| |
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@dif.dk>
- 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/
| |