Messages in this thread | | | From | Blaisorblade <> | Subject | Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default? | Date | Fri, 3 Dec 2004 20:57:54 +0100 |
| |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |