Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default?

[Andreas Steinmetz]

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@xxxxxxxx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/