Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:07:17 +0100 | From | Andreas Steinmetz <> | Subject | Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default? |
| |
Jesper Juhl wrote: > 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.
Not if you build different kernels for quite some machines on a build system. It is neat then to use INSTALL_PATH and INSTALL_MOD_PATH to get the build output into target machine related directories for further automated processing. What I just want to say is that, yes, set INSTALL_PATH (and INSTALL_MOD_PATH) whereever you want to point it to - as long as it is not already set. -- Andreas Steinmetz SPAMmers use robotrap@domdv.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/
| |