Re: Linux 2.6.23-rc9 and a heads-up for the 2.6.24 series..

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > cp: cannot stat `arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage': No such file or directory
> > > 
> > > Obviously, this file has moved to arch/x86/boot, but it seems like 
> > > possibly unnecessary breakage. I've been copying bzImage for years 
> > > from arch/x86_64/boot, and I'm sure there's a handful of scripts 
> > > (other than Debian's kernel-image) doing this too.
> > > 
> > > For now, I hacked the tool[1]. Maybe, if we care, a symlink could be 
> > > set up between arch/x86/boot and arch/$ARCH/boot ? Or would papering 
> > > over this be more trouble than it's worth?
> > 
> > yeah, a symlink is the right solution i think. Our first-step goal is to 
> > make the switchover seamless for all practical purposes, and a 
> > compatibility symlink in arch/i386/boot/ will not hurt. (we shouldnt 
> > worry about the really old zImage target though)
> 
> But when can we then get rid of it?
> This is a simple question about when we take the noise..
> And right now people know we are shifting to x86 - so it makes
> sense to let the dependent userspace tools take the pain now and not later.
> 
> Starting to fill up a build kernel with symlinks for compatibility with
> random progarms seems to be the wrong approach.
> 
> 	Sam - that dislike especially the asm symlink

Sam,

I completely agree with you, but we want to keep the migration noise
as low as possible. Adding the symlink right now along with an entry
into features-removal.txt (6 month grace period) allows a smoother
transition. The distro folks should better get their gear together
until then.

	tglx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/