Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default?

Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default?

[Blaisorblade]

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?
-- 
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
Linux registered user n. 292729

Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default?

[Sam Ravnborg]

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.

	Sam

Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default?

[Jan Engelhardt]

>> 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).

FHS says that the kernel image can be in either / or /boot. However, older 386'
require that extra partition below 1024 cyls.
Plus, I am of the opinion that there should not be any files in /
(incircumventable exception are quota files); ls -l already shows 57 entries
for this machine's root dir.

>If /boot is ok for other than just i386 we can give it a try.

boot is always ok given that you copy the kernel from the source tree to <your
favorite destination> by hand.



Jan Engelhardt
-- 
Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung
Am Fassberg, 37077 Göttingen, www.gwdg.de

Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default?

[Andreas Steinmetz]

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.
> 

Please note that there are cases where you build a kernel for machine x 
on machine y. Which means: don't unconditionally uncomment this line.

-- 
Andreas Steinmetz                       SPAMmers use robotrap@domdv.de

Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default?

[Jesper Juhl]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Andreas Steinmetz wrote:

> 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.
> > 
> 
> Please note that there are cases where you build a kernel for machine x on
> machine y. Which means: don't unconditionally uncomment this line.
> 
Huh, in that case wouldn't you just copy the kernel image from the source 
dir on machine y to whereever it needs to liveon machine x by hand? At 
least that's what I do, the Makefile and its INSTALL_PATH never comes into 
play then.


--
Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@dif.dk>

Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default?

[Andreas Steinmetz]

Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
> 
> 
>>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.
>>>
>>
>>Please note that there are cases where you build a kernel for machine x on
>>machine y. Which means: don't unconditionally uncomment this line.
>>
> 
> Huh, in that case wouldn't you just copy the kernel image from the source 
> dir on machine y to whereever it needs to liveon machine x by hand? At 
> least that's what I do, the Makefile and its INSTALL_PATH never comes into 
> play then.

Not if you build different kernels for quite some machines on a build 
system. It is neat then to use INSTALL_PATH and INSTALL_MOD_PATH to get 
the build output into target machine related directories for further 
automated processing.
What I just want to say is that, yes, set INSTALL_PATH (and 
INSTALL_MOD_PATH) whereever you want to point it to - as long as it is 
not already set.
-- 
Andreas Steinmetz                       SPAMmers use robotrap@domdv.de

Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default?

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 02:03:24PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
 > Please note that there are cases where you build a kernel for machine x on
> > machine y. Which means: don't unconditionally uncomment this line.
> > 
> Huh, in that case wouldn't you just copy the kernel image from the source 
> dir on machine y to whereever it needs to liveon machine x by hand? At 
> least that's what I do, the Makefile and its INSTALL_PATH never comes into 
> play then.

In scripting it's much easier to have:
make INSTALL_MOD_PATH=/nfs/frodo/ modules_install
make INSTALL_PATH=/nfs/frodo/ install

And everything 'just works'.

	Sam

Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default?

[Jesper Juhl]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Andreas Steinmetz wrote:

> Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > 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.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Please note that there are cases where you build a kernel for machine x on
> > > machine y. Which means: don't unconditionally uncomment this line.
> > > 
> > 
> > Huh, in that case wouldn't you just copy the kernel image from the source
> > dir on machine y to whereever it needs to liveon machine x by hand? At least
> > that's what I do, the Makefile and its INSTALL_PATH never comes into play
> > then.
> 
> Not if you build different kernels for quite some machines on a build system.
> It is neat then to use INSTALL_PATH and INSTALL_MOD_PATH to get the build
> output into target machine related directories for further automated
> processing.
> What I just want to say is that, yes, set INSTALL_PATH (and INSTALL_MOD_PATH)
> whereever you want to point it to - as long as it is not already set.

Fair enough, I see your point.

--
Jesper Juhl

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