Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default?

[Blaisorblade]

On Sunday 21 November 2004 10:43, 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.
Sorry for not answering to this.

What I say is *yes*, let's try it.

However, I know that ia64 is different because I read that in Fedora 2 kernel 
RPM specs:

#
# IA64 wants to be different as usual.. sigh.
#
%ifarch ia64
%define image_install_path boot/efi/EFI/redhat
%else
%define image_install_path boot
%endif

that should be done with a "ARCH_DEFAULT_INSTALL_PATH" set by archs and the 
main Makefile taking it by default. (Or even without indirection).
-- 
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729
http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade
-
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/