| 1 |
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 09:07:30 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > Seriously though, why not use make install? That way you know the |
| 4 |
> > right files get copied and given the expected names. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Because I name my kernel and config the same thing. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
make install also copies your config to /boot, with a matching name. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> I also don't like |
| 11 |
> the way it does that link thingy it does. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
It only does that if you already have the links, i.e. it updates them, |
| 14 |
not creates them.. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> It seems to expect to keep |
| 17 |
> only two kernels around and I'm real bad to have more than that, |
| 18 |
> sometimes way more than that. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
No it doesn't, it only installs kernels, not uninstalls them. Sure, there |
| 21 |
are only two symlinks but those are less relevant with GRUB2 since |
| 22 |
grub2-mkconfig creates menu entries for all your kernels anyway. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> Plus, if I do it myself, I know what I am |
| 25 |
> doing. If I use make install, I don't know if something was changed in |
| 26 |
> how it does it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
So you trust make to compile and link hundreds of object files and create |
| 29 |
the kernels and modules. You also trust it to copy all the modules, but |
| 30 |
you just want to copy that one last file manually so you can pretend you |
| 31 |
are in control? ;-) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Feminism: the radical notion that women are people. |
Archives