Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default?

[Andreas Steinmetz]

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.

--
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/