Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Oct 2007 07:41:18 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.23-rc9 and a heads-up for the 2.6.24 series.. |
| |
* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/2/07, Alistair John Strachan <alistair@devzero.co.uk> wrote: > > This is certainly a tool issue, but if I use Debian's kernel-image "make-kpkg" > > wrapper around the kernel build system, it fails with: > > > > cp: cannot stat `arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage': No such file or directory > > > > Obviously, this file has moved to arch/x86/boot, but it seems like possibly > > unnecessary breakage. I've been copying bzImage for years from > > arch/x86_64/boot, and I'm sure there's a handful of scripts (other than > > Debian's kernel-image) doing this too. > > I believe most sane tools would be using the output of uname -m, so a > possible way to fix this would be fixing the data passed to userspace > from uname. However, that might be the case that it creates a new set > of problems too, with tools relying on the output of uname -m to > determine wheter the machine is 32 or 64 bit, and so on.
there are two problems with the use of uname -m:
- the build machine architecture is not necessarily the same as the target architecture. (for example i cross-compile all my 32-bit kernels on a 64-bit box.)
- we kept uname -m compatile. multilib depends on it, and other pieces of userspace as well. So uname -m still outputs 'i386' on 32-bit and 'x86_64' on 64-bit - not 'x86'.
a symlink looks like the best solution to me.
Ingo - 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/
| |