Re: Why INSTALL_PATH is not /boot by default?

[Andreas Steinmetz <ast@domdv.de>]

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