From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:29:51 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Martin Habets Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make install target work Message-ID: <20040618152951.GC811@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20040616181652.GA7240@palantir8> <20040616190548.GD24479@smtp.west.cox.net> <20040617113822.GB9175@palantir8> <20040617150358.GI24479@smtp.west.cox.net> <20040618091707.GA15958@palantir8> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20040618091707.GA15958@palantir8> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:17:07AM +0100, Martin Habets wrote: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 08:03:58AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 12:38:22PM +0100, Martin Habets wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 12:05:48PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 07:16:52PM +0100, Martin Habets wrote: > > > > > > > > > This patch makes the install target work. After all, it is already > > > > > mentioned in the 'make help' output. > > > > > The only question is, should it install zImage by default? I always > > > > > install vmlinux, so I used that. > > > > > > > > Given the number of different ways we have to deal with (this really > > > > only handles pmac) I'd much rather just have boot/install.sh run either > > > > the distribution or user-provided script. > > > > > > Ehh.. that's exactly what install.sh tries to do! Only if both of these > > > do not exist will the bottom part of the code be executed. > > > > Right. And it's the bits at the bottom that I don't like. > > Ok, so you'd like to fail if neither nethod is avaiable (right?). I have no > problem with that, but realize that it causes some inconsistent behaviour > compared to other architectures. By fail just: echo "No install method found, nothing installed" is fine. > Can you explain why or what you don't like, please? > > > > The distribution provided scripts want an image to install. I agree > > > that it is impossible to supply the right image for all systems. > > > But maybe it is possible to echance this patch for some systems, > > > providing a different image based on config settings? > > > > Possibly. But I'm not convinced that the complexity will buy us > > anything over the distribution script (which should cover all of the > > pmac cases, if not, bug your distribution :)) and the user provided > > hook. > > Yes, covering all cases in the kernel would be overkill, but I did not > suggest that. I'm talking about the complexity of covering most of the cases, for non-pmac. But.. > Pushing all this to the distribution script is not right > either. I disagree. Given that the common case is using yaboot, that's not a big burden on the distribution. But if one decides to support grub or U-Boot (with the latter being a bit more likely, IMHO, since it's what the Pegasos boards use, I believe), it does become a distribution problem to know how it set things up so that the user can add new kernels, not the kernels responsibility to know where it has to put something for a given distribution. > That's not much more than a fancy copy script, and keeping it in > sync with kernel code (directory and filenames) would be impossible. This is rather static information, and I've taken some pains to ensure that image names / locations have stayed consistent in 2.$(stable). > Besides, this kind of logic belongs in the kernel, if anywhere. > > But there is an intermediate solution, which should satisfy all users: > a makefile variable can be overruled by users, e.g. > make BOOTIMAGE=arch/ppc/boot/images/zImage.prep install Actually, Sam Ravnborg introduced a patch, which I think will be accepted soon, to add a BOOT_IMAGE variable to the Makefiles, so that 'make rpm/deb/tarball' will be cleaner. Once that happens, we can revisit the idea of hooking an install script up, for all of the various targets. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/