[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: symlinks in /boot vs. symlinks in /

On Sat, Jun 19, 2004 at 01:16:15AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de> [2004.06.18.2323 +0200]:
> > > OTOH, the linux kernel uses this scheme for a very log time now.
> > > Deviating from it will break "make oldconfig dep install
> > > modules_install" style upgrades from upstream sources.
> > 
> > Uh, if I do 'make bzimage', then the kernel installs into /boot.
> This would be a major bug, "make bzImage" shouldn't install anything.
> > The kernel used to go into /root back in the seventies and eighties,
> > and it still does in other OSs like solaris.
> > 
> > But it doesn't in Linux, really.
> Then you have a different Linux than the kernel.org one.
> > I haven't seen it anywhere but in Debian.
> I remember Slackware and old SuSE, as well as IRIX and Ultrix.

I think old RH5 did put kernels in /boot.

Rationale was I think.

1. Some needs to do dual boot (with something like windows which need
   large single partition). 
2. BIOS 1024 cylinder limitation and related old lilo limitation
3. Split small /boot and put it in hda1, windows in hda2, Linux in hda3 (>1024)
   to have bootable system.  (All boot data like kernel images are below
   1024 limit.)

With newer BIOS and newer Lilo and grub, this may not be the issue.

But keeping kernel image in /boot gives you more flexibility with old

You can adjust boot loader if you compile kernel.  While system need to
function as installed in as much HW configuration as possible.  Thus
kernel image needs to be in /boot no matter how ugly it is :)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: