Messages in this thread |  | | From | Keith Owens <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.2: /proc/config.gz | Date | Fri, 01 Sep 2000 11:10:49 +1100 |
| |
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:08:49 -0400 (EDT), Chris Meadors <clubneon@hereintown.net> wrote: >What about those of us who don't have modules enabled. "make >modules_install" complains. > >I'm still like the idea of /lib/kernel or /lib/linux. Keep /lib/modules >for modules. Or on my machines I won't even have to create /lib/modules.
The directory name is irrelevant, we just want one place to store information for a specific kernel. Right now we have /boot/vmlinuz, /boot/System.map with symlinks to the real vmlinuz and map, /lib/modules/<version> contains modules and the symlink to the kernel source tree, nothing contains .config. Is it just me or does this design make no sense?
Having one directory per installed kernel containing vmlinuz, map, config, build symlink, modules and any future kernel related data makes sense. Whether you call it /lib/modules/<version> or /lib/kernel/<version> is irrelevant. The fact that "make modules_install" complains without modules configured in is also irrelevant, that little bit of the Makefile is easily fixed, but there is no point in changing the Makefile until we agree on a design change.
The only problem I can see with the single directory model is on disks where /lib/module/<version>/vmlinuz is past cylinder 1024, although that restriction is fast disappearing. Even this problem can be easily fixed by a new Makefile target (make install_low) which copies vmlinuz to /boot as well as /lib/module/<version>.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |