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 [email protected] ;-)
[email protected] 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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
