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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
