On Tuesday, 22 October 2019 14:42:44 BST Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 03:33:24 -0500, Dale wrote: > > If one of those should stop working or I buy something new and need to > > add support for it, the new kernel will have a -2 on the end instead of > > -1. I'm not sure on the -gentoo one. Thing is, I can boot the old > > kernel of that version or even boot a older kernel if needed. It gives > > me a lot of booting options. Maybe someone can figure out a way to make > > those scripts name kernels that way?? > > > > I plan to clean older ones out eventually and I use uprecords to pick > > what kernel are the most stable and pick the latest versions, usually > > two maybe three, just to be sure I can boot something. I'll also add, I > > name my config files the same as kernels and also those init thingys I > > hate so much. The grub thingy requires the init thingy to have the same > > names but the configs just make sense. ;-) > > > > If a script could do it that way, I might even use it. I've yet to hear > > of one that does it tho. > > make install does that, except the kernels are named vmlinuz-* rather > then kernel-*. The LOCALVERSION settings in the kernel config help. I do > the whole job with a script that boils down to > > [ -f .config ] || make oldconfig > make all modules_install install || exit 1 > dracut --some-opts > grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg > > If I trust the makefile to build the entire operating system kernel, > build all the modules it needs and copy all those modules to the correct > locations, I don't see why I can't let it copy one more file to /boot.
I've forgotten, does 'make ... install' also copy the .config and System.map files to boot, too? -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
