JOSEPH JEZAK WROTE:
> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE "CP CRAP".
IT'S OBVIOUS WHAT IT
> DOES AND MAKE INSTALL DOESN'T WORK ON ALL
ARCHITECTURES. "MAKE
> INSTALL" ISN'T AS EXPLICIT AND MAY INTRODUCE OTHER
ISSUES.
>
> -JOE
WELL, ALRIGHTY THEN. I HADN'T FIGURED "MAKE
INSTALL" WOULD CHANGE ITS
BEHAVIOR SO MUCH ON DIFFERENT PLATFORMS. FORTUNATELY, I'D
ONLY COMMENTED
OUT THAT STUFF IN A COUPLE OF HANDBOOKS, SO I'LL GO BACK AND
REVERT THAT
CHANGE.
I DID, HOWEVER, HAVE TO FIX SOME INSTANCES WHERE THE
DIRECTIONS REFERRED
TO CPING VMMLINUZ, BUT THE *-BOOTLOADER FILES TALKED ABOUT
VMLINUX.
THAT'LL BE THE ONLY THING TO REMAIN CHANGED.
WHAT ABOUT JUST LEAVING IT FOR X86+AMD64? THE "MAKE
INSTALL" COPIES
EVERYTHING PROPERLY FOR ME WHETHER OR NOT /BOOT IS A
SEPARATE PARTITION,
AND SINCE I ACTUALLY HAVE THE HARDWARE (A WHOLE 2 ARCHES
;)), I CAN SAY
WITH CERTAINTY IT CAUSES NO ISSUES.
I'M ALWAYS SURPRISED WHEN PEOPLE FIND OUT THERE'S A
"MAKE INSTALL"
COMMAND TO BEGIN WITH -- IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S ONE OF THE
BEST-KEPT SECRETS
OF KERNEL COMPILATION, RIGHT UP THERE WITH "MAKE
GCONFIG". IT DOESN'T
CAUSE PROBLEMS ON THESE TWO ARCHES, AND IT'S NICER THAN
CPING A BUNCHA
STUFF AND MANUALLY NAMING IT. I'D LIKE TO KEEP IT IN FOR
X86+AMD64.
THOUGHTS?
|
