From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: Does git belong in root's $PATH? Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 00:01:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20060107230130.GA8335@mars.ravnborg.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: walt , Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jan 08 00:01:56 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EvN4K-00067E-Md for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 08 Jan 2006 00:01:53 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161049AbWAGXBt (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jan 2006 18:01:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161048AbWAGXBt (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jan 2006 18:01:49 -0500 Received: from pasmtp.tele.dk ([193.162.159.95]:25873 "EHLO pasmtp.tele.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161046AbWAGXBs (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Jan 2006 18:01:48 -0500 Received: from mars.ravnborg.org (0x50a0757d.hrnxx9.adsl-dhcp.tele.dk [80.160.117.125]) by pasmtp.tele.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93391EC316; Sun, 8 Jan 2006 00:01:44 +0100 (CET) Received: by mars.ravnborg.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 11ADA43C054; Sun, 8 Jan 2006 00:01:31 +0100 (CET) To: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 10:31:52AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, walt wrote: > > > > When updated my kernel this morning, the same way I've been doing > > it for many months, I noticed that the -gxxxxxxx localversion > > string was missing from the new kernel's name. > > > > I finally figured out that this happened because /usr/local/bin > > is not in my root's $PATH, and the setlocalversion script depends > > on git. (The only thing I do as root is 'make install'). > > Ok, sounds like a build buglet to me. If you've done a "make" as a regular > user, and just do a "make install" as root, I'd argue that the "make > install" should do as little as humanly possible, and literally just > install the kernel. If it starts changing the version, that sounds a bit > fishy. > > Sam, anything we can do? Today kbuild uses same method to build KERNELRELEASE no matter what target is used, and I recently committed a change that used git tools as replacement for direct manipulation with .git/* What I did not realise was that we now require git during make install time - which is obviously plain wrong. I will try to look into a cleaner solution tomorrow where KERNELRELEASE is fetched somewhere else during make install time. > > That said: > > > I suppose I'm asking a philosophical question here: do you > > guys install git where root can find it (as a system tool)? > > I don't, but I don't use "make install" anyway, I just do "make > modules_install". I install the kernel by hand, I always have. > > Of course, that's partly because I've always felt that "make install" does > too much (I think "make modules_install" is better - it really only > installs the already-built modules). The big difference here is that "make modules_install" is part of kbuild, whereas "make install" almost just call installkernel which is distribution specific - and the distributions does all sort of stuff in installkernel :-( > > Maybe it would be best to remove the "vmlinux" dependency from "make > install" (so that "make install" will do exactly that: just install). I > think all the documentation already tells you to do a "make" and then a > "make install". I had a short chat with David Miller about something similar. What I really liked to do was to tell user if vmlinux needed an update. But the implmentation of kbuild does make this almost impossible - I have at least not seen how to do it. When I during early 2.6.12 removed the dependency on vmlinux from the install target people were complaining that there scripts broke and the solution that was implmented was a new target: "make kernel_install" and "make install" got back the vmlinux dependency. Only difference between the two are that "make kernel_install" does NOT have vmlinux as prerequisite. This was btw only done for i386 and the only other architecture that have kernel_install is parisc with a vmlinux dependency. So no, I'm very unlikely to remove the vmlinux dependency from the "make install" target - it results in too many suprises. > > The other make targets really _are_ different: "make fdimage" depends on > vmlinux, but that's because it literally just builds the image. "make > install" is special. > > Sam, what say you? I forget what the kbuild mailing list is, but maybe > you can forward this suggestion there.. These days it is named linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ;-) kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net is seldom used though I still monitor it. Talked with mec about discontinue it but he liked to keep it araound. He is btw still moderator on that list filtering away all spam. Sam