Mark Knecht wrote: > On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Mark Knecht wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:32 PM, KH <gentoo-u...@konstantinhansen.de> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Volker Armin Hemmann schrieb: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sonntag 01 Februar 2009, Dale wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I just rebuilt a newer kernel and noticed something. It seems bzImage >>>>>> has moved from arch/i386/boot/bzImage to arch/x86/boot/bzImage. When >>>>>> did this happen? Is x86 the same as i386? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> yes. They merged the '386' and the amd64/x86_64 architecture into x86. >>>>> >>>>> And it happend a couple of kernel versions ago. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I am running amd64 using 2.6.27-gentoo-r8 and in arch there still is x86 >>>> an x86_64. Am I doing anything wrong or did I just missanderstand you? >>>> >>>> kh >>>> >>>> >>> cd in there and look around. x86_64 only has a boot directory and when >>> you look at the bzImage file in it you find it's a link to >>> ../../x86/boot/bzImage so what's happening is all the files are under >>> x86 but if you say 'I built AMD64' and do cp arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage >>> you are really getting the file under x86. >>> >>> Hope this helps, >>> Mark >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Well, when I tried to copy the old way, it just copied the link itself, >> then when I looked in /boot, it was red and really upset. I had to copy >> the kernel with Konqeror to get it into /boot, after finding the stupid >> thing. Don't get mad at me, every time I copied it it was a broken >> link. Sometimes you got to do what you got to do. :/ >> >> Dale >> >> :-) :-) >> >> > > Dale, > There isn't a reason in the world why I'd get mad at you! :-)))) > > I guess I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'when I tried to copy > it the old way'. I think my kernel management is far less > sophisticated than what I'm reading the real Linux guys here do. I'm > embarrased to say that the only thing in my /boot directory is a bunch > of bzImage files and a grub subdirectory. I have nothing else. > Basically I build the kernel using make && make modules_install and > then copy the kernel by hand using > > cp arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage /boot/bzImage-2.6.27-gentoo-r8 > > or whatever the kernel is. I add that to grub.conf and I'm done. works for me. > > Possibly you've done more or less the same thing but using i386 > instead of x86_64 or x86? I think the i386/boot/bzImage file has > actually been a link to the x86 directory for awhile now. I looked in > an older 2.6.23 kernel on this machine and found an i386 directory but > didn't in the 2.6.24 kernel so I guess that's when things changed. > > Hope this helps, > Mark > > >
I sort of do the way you do but I change the name so I know what version of kernel it came from and what version it is from my build. Sometimes I have to build three or four before I get what I want. I also copy the config over with the same naming scheme so I know which config goes with which kernel. I always keep two kernels in there but sometimes I get a dozen or more when I am testing new ones. The problem I ran into when I copied the old way, cp arch/i386/boot/bzImage /boot, that wasn't the kernel but was a link to the kernel in the x86 directory tree. When I copied the link then the link got broke and then it appeared red on my screen. I thought I was going nuts for a bit. I hadn't heard anything about the kernel being moved and it had been a while. I'm old and I do forget sometimes. I don't get mad about much either. It's just another day. I got enough things to worry about already. Dale :-) :-)
