"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU> writes:
> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 23:03:40 +0200
> From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@caldera.de>
>
> > Ok. I changed the `pwd` to $TOPDIR, as that's what we use everywhere
> > else.. Objections?
>
> Now that we have a 'non-module' object in /lib/modules, we could simply
> copy System.map and the bzImage/vmlinux there and rename it to /kernel ...
>
> That certainly makes a lot of sense; I've alwyas thought it was a bit
> odd that some stuff was in /lib/modules and Systemp.map and bzImage are
> stored in /boot. My guess is this is because Linus doesn't use modules,
> so he doesn't see this particular aesthetic fault. :-)
having just yesterday run afoul of this, i second this sentiment. i
got a new faster hard disk and i copied the root system over to it.
then i built a new kernel. unfortunately, i botched my lilo config
and specified the wrong root partition (no biggie, i had good config
entries). when i booted, my modules were nowhere to be found (well,
they were on the other parition, so modutiles and various scripts
didn't find them...).
i think keeping the whole kernel, system.map and modules in one dir
tree would be better. the current system strikes me as a gratuitous
spreading of stuff all over creation. why isn't everything to do with
a kernel installation kept in one place?
1) stick the image, map ( initial ramdisks &c) into
/boot/$(uname -r)
2) put modules in /boot/$(uname -r)/modules instead of
/lib/modules/$(uname -r)
so for 2.2.17pre13 you'd have
/boot/2.2.17pre13/bzImage
/boot/2.2.17pre13/System.map
/boot/2.2.17pre13/modules/....
whether you use modules or not, i think it helps to bundle the image
and map and leave the filenames alone.
if you want a kernel include, make that dir/symlink
/boot/$(uname -r)/include
i'd be wanting to increase my /boot partition from 15MB to perhaps
20-30MB, but that's just small potatos.
> I'm not entirely sure that now is the best time to make such a change,
> but it does make a certain amount of sense.
it's only a cosmetic re-arrangement and wouldn't affect the kernel
itself. otoh modutils and a few scripts depend upon the historical
placement of the modules. i am not sure how painful that would be to
change. i think a symlink
/lib/modules/$(uname -r) -> /boot/$(uname -r)/modules
would take care of most of it, no?
yet another little request -- can we number the new kernel with pre
patch too? i am using 2.4.0-test5-pre5 but the -pre5 is gone from
uname -r. i'd like to see -pre5 added to extraversion like the -acXX
stuff was.
-- J o h a n K u l l s t a m [kullstam@ne.mediaone.net] Don't Fear the Penguin!- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:00:25 EST