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 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ;-)
kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net 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
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
kbuild-devel mailing list
kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
