[gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Dale]

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?

I'm just wanting to make sure I am not going to blow up something when I
boot that thing.

Thanks

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

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'm just wanting to make sure I am not going to blow up something when I
> boot that thing.

why do you care anyway? Just install debianutils and use make install.

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Dale]

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> 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.
>   

OK.  At least I ain't going crazy.  Whew, that was close.

>   
>> I'm just wanting to make sure I am not going to blow up something when I
>> boot that thing.
>>     
>
> why do you care anyway? Just install debianutils and use make install.
>
>
>   


I like to copy mine manually.  I dunno, I just do.  I'm weird that way. 
I also have a unique way of naming my kernels so I can keep up with
which is which. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Sonntag 01 Februar 2009, Dale wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > 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.
>
> OK.  At least I ain't going crazy.  Whew, that was close.
>
> >> I'm just wanting to make sure I am not going to blow up something when I
> >> boot that thing.
> >
> > why do you care anyway? Just install debianutils and use make install.
>
> I like to copy mine manually.  I dunno, I just do.  I'm weird that way.
> I also have a unique way of naming my kernels so I can keep up with
> which is which.

well, you can always put the name in the config - and let make install do the 
copy. That way you get a nice vmlinuz symlink to the latest kernel and 
vmlinuz.old to the older one - and you never have to touch grub.conf again.

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Dale]

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Sonntag 01 Februar 2009, Dale wrote:
>   
>> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>     
>>> 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.
>>>       
>> OK.  At least I ain't going crazy.  Whew, that was close.
>>
>>     
>>>> I'm just wanting to make sure I am not going to blow up something when I
>>>> boot that thing.
>>>>         
>>> why do you care anyway? Just install debianutils and use make install.
>>>       
>> I like to copy mine manually.  I dunno, I just do.  I'm weird that way.
>> I also have a unique way of naming my kernels so I can keep up with
>> which is which.
>>     
>
> well, you can always put the name in the config - and let make install do the 
> copy. That way you get a nice vmlinuz symlink to the latest kernel and 
> vmlinuz.old to the older one - and you never have to touch grub.conf again.
>
>   

But that would only allow you to have two kernels laying around.  Right
now I have these:

root@smoker / # ls /boot/bzImage-2*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2355440 Jan 31 18:52 /boot/bzImage-2-28-r8-1
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2460088 Jan  2 20:13 /boot/bzImage-2.6.23-r8-7
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2288336 Dec 30 07:49 /boot/bzImage-2.6.27-r7-1
root@smoker / #

I just cleaned it out the other day but sometimes I have 6 or 8 of them
in there, especially when I am testing stuff.  Make install just isn't
my cup of tea.  Maybe one day.  You may also notice it took me 7 tries
on one of them before I got it right.  I haven't rebooted yet to test
out the .27 version.  It sort of got left out.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Sonntag 01 Februar 2009, Dale wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Sonntag 01 Februar 2009, Dale wrote:
> >> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> OK.  At least I ain't going crazy.  Whew, that was close.
> >>
> >>>> I'm just wanting to make sure I am not going to blow up something when
> >>>> I boot that thing.
> >>>
> >>> why do you care anyway? Just install debianutils and use make install.
> >>
> >> I like to copy mine manually.  I dunno, I just do.  I'm weird that way.
> >> I also have a unique way of naming my kernels so I can keep up with
> >> which is which.
> >
> > well, you can always put the name in the config - and let make install do
> > the copy. That way you get a nice vmlinuz symlink to the latest kernel
> > and vmlinuz.old to the older one - and you never have to touch grub.conf
> > again.
>
> But that would only allow you to have two kernels laying around.  Right
> now I have these:
>

no, you can have as many kernels as you want. But there is a vmlinuz symlink 
to the latest and vmlinuz.old symlink to the previous installed one.

[gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[ABCD]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>> Dale wrote:
>>>> I like to copy mine manually.  I dunno, I just do.  I'm weird that way.
>>>> I also have a unique way of naming my kernels so I can keep up with
>>>> which is which.
>>> well, you can always put the name in the config - and let make install do
>>> the copy. That way you get a nice vmlinuz symlink to the latest kernel
>>> and vmlinuz.old to the older one - and you never have to touch grub.conf
>>> again.
>> But that would only allow you to have two kernels laying around.  Right
>> now I have these:
>>
> 
> no, you can have as many kernels as you want. But there is a vmlinuz symlink 
> to the latest and vmlinuz.old symlink to the previous installed one.
> 

To be precise, the config option CONFIG_LOCALVERSION appends a string to
the end of the kernel version, which installkernel uses to place the
kernel image.

If /boot/vmlinuz exists, then it is moved to /boot/vmlinuz.old, and a
*symlink* from /boot/vmlinuz is created to "vmlinuz-${VERSION}".  If
/boot/vmlinuz did *not* exist before installation, then no symlink is
created.  installkernel also copies your .config to
/boot/config-${VERSION}, performing the same move and symlink operation.
 In addition, if you *do* install the same kernel version twice, it will
move your old version out of the way (to vmlinuz-${VERSION}.old) first,
so even if you do forget to update your .config, you will still have
both kernels.

To see exactly what "make install" does, read /sbin/installkernel (a
/bin/sh script), as that's all `make install` calls (well, it first
checks for ~/bin/${CROSS_COMPILE}installkernel, and calls it, if it
exists, which allows you to customize the installation process).

Personally, I will set CONFIG_LOCALVERSION to ".#" or "-r0.#" on a
second+ compilation of the same kernel version. (My current kernel is
2.6.28-gentoo-r1.2).

- --
ABCD
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkmFJ1cACgkQOypDUo0oQOouMACcC6abA3gFvOZQbDB5dMnMBAMo
D8MAnjr4MSrTG9KiC6cB6fodijrSWjK/
=6Bgu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 840 bytes --]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:38:48 -0500, ABCD wrote:

> To be precise, the config option CONFIG_LOCALVERSION appends a string to
> the end of the kernel version, which installkernel uses to place the
> kernel image.

You can get the same effect by creating a file called localversion
containing the string to add, which saves altering the kernel config. If
you make this a symlink to .version, you even get it incremented
automatically.

> If /boot/vmlinuz exists, then it is moved to /boot/vmlinuz.old, and a
> *symlink* from /boot/vmlinuz is created to "vmlinuz-${VERSION}".  If
> /boot/vmlinuz did *not* exist before installation, then no symlink is
> created.

Instead, vmlinuz-${VERSION} is copied to vmlinuz.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore looking
like an idiot.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Geralt]

Nobody here using the genkernel package to build his kernel? I'm using
it all the time, makes initramfs creation so much easier :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Sonntag 01 Februar 2009, Geralt wrote:
> Nobody here using the genkernel package to build his kernel? I'm using
> it all the time, makes initramfs creation so much easier :-)

who needs an initramfs?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Norberto Bensa]

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sonntag 01 Februar 2009, Geralt wrote:
>> Nobody here using the genkernel package to build his kernel? I'm using
>> it all the time, makes initramfs creation so much easier :-)
>
> who needs an initramfs?
>

Me of course! I have root on lvm, so I need one.

To Geralt, yes. I use genkernel.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Sonntag 01 Februar 2009, Norberto Bensa wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
>
> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Sonntag 01 Februar 2009, Geralt wrote:
> >> Nobody here using the genkernel package to build his kernel? I'm using
> >> it all the time, makes initramfs creation so much easier :-)
> >
> > who needs an initramfs?
>
> Me of course! I have root on lvm, so I need one.

I have root on raid5 - and so I don't need lvm. Yay!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Dirk Heinrichs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 143 bytes --]

Am Sonntag, 1. Februar 2009 17:26:23 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:

> who needs an initramfs?

Those with an encrypted root fs?

Bye...

	Dirk

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Geralt]

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sonntag 01 Februar 2009, Geralt wrote:
>> Nobody here using the genkernel package to build his kernel? I'm using
>> it all the time, makes initramfs creation so much easier :-)
>
> who needs an initramfs?
>
>

Me of course ;-)

I have root on lvm and I'm using uvesafb (+splash)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Tom]

>who needs an initramfs?

Not me ;)

But seeing this discussion, I've finally realised that I'm a dumbass.
For ages now I've been manually copying the kernel, the system.map and
the config around my filesystem. I've always wondered how on earth
people manage who do a lot of kernel testing  without exploding due to
frustration. Now I know... :)

But out of curiosity, and to recap:

I can set the version, either in the kernel config with
CONFIG_LOCALVERSION
or by using a file 
localversion 
containing a version string?

Does this then create a bzImage-versionstring file, and make install
copies this to /boot/kernel-versionstring (and system.map and .config
respectably)?

Also how exactly do you then need to build the kernel.
Does a simple 'make' suffice?

Tom 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Sonntag 01 Februar 2009, Tom wrote:
> >who needs an initramfs?
>
> Not me ;)
>
> But seeing this discussion, I've finally realised that I'm a dumbass.
> For ages now I've been manually copying the kernel, the system.map and
> the config around my filesystem. I've always wondered how on earth
> people manage who do a lot of kernel testing  without exploding due to
> frustration. Now I know... :)
>
> But out of curiosity, and to recap:
>
> I can set the version, either in the kernel config with
> CONFIG_LOCALVERSION
> or by using a file
> localversion
> containing a version string?

I am using the first way, don't know the second.

>
> Does this then create a bzImage-versionstring file, and make install
> copies this to /boot/kernel-versionstring (and system.map and .config
> respectably)?

vmlinuz-versionstring. 

>
> Also how exactly do you then need to build the kernel.
> Does a simple 'make' suffice?

I use:
make all modules_install install.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 521 bytes --]

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 18:34:10 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> > I can set the version, either in the kernel config with
> > CONFIG_LOCALVERSION
> > or by using a file
> > localversion
> > containing a version string?  
> 
> I am using the first way, don't know the second.

It works just the same, but keeps it put of the config file (and lets you
use the contents of .version without needing git). The
CONFIG_LOCALVERSION help describes it.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Criminal Lawyer" is a redundancy.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Jesús Guerrero]

El Dom, 1 de Febrero de 2009, 18:27, Tom escribió:
> Does this then create a bzImage-versionstring file, and make install
> copies this to /boot/kernel-versionstring (and system.map and .config
> respectably)?

Yes.

> Also how exactly do you then need to build the kernel.
> Does a simple 'make' suffice?

Yes.

make && make install modules_install is all you need. Then
either edit grub.conf or if you don't like tinkering with it
just set it to boot vmlinuz and forget about it.


-- 
Jesús Guerrero

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Saphirus Sage]

On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com 
 > wrote:

> On Sonntag 01 Februar 2009, Geralt wrote:
>> Nobody here using the genkernel package to build his kernel? I'm  
>> using
>> it all the time, makes initramfs creation so much easier :-)
>
> who needs an initramfs?
>
>
My laptop won't boot without initramfs. Took me a weekend installing  
gentoo to figure that one out. And yeah, I actually to use genkernel.  
It allows me to configure how I want it, and just stop worrying from  
that point forward. 

[gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-01, Geralt <usr.gentoo@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Nobody here using the genkernel package to build his kernel?

Not me.  I do use the debian install utilities.

> Ib'm using it all the time, makes initramfs creation so much
> easier :-)

Why would one need an initramfs?

-- 
Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Dirk Heinrichs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 167 bytes --]

Am Montag, 2. Februar 2009 05:53:34 schrieb Grant Edwards:

> Why would one need an initramfs?

That question has already been answered in this thread.

Bye...

	Dirk

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Harry Putnam]

Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> writes:

> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:38:48 -0500, ABCD wrote:
>
>> To be precise, the config option CONFIG_LOCALVERSION appends a string to
>> the end of the kernel version, which installkernel uses to place the
>> kernel image.
>
> You can get the same effect by creating a file called localversion
> containing the string to add, which saves altering the kernel config. If
> you make this a symlink to .version, you even get it incremented
> automatically.
>
>> If /boot/vmlinuz exists, then it is moved to /boot/vmlinuz.old, and a
>> *symlink* from /boot/vmlinuz is created to "vmlinuz-${VERSION}".  If
>> /boot/vmlinuz did *not* exist before installation, then no symlink is
>> created.
>
> Instead, vmlinuz-${VERSION} is copied to vmlinuz.

I'm a little confused here... what exactly is in .version?  Say if I
wanted to identify the kernel as belonging to a specific machine.
HOST is vm23.  Now if I wanted to have an incrementing version string
that included that host name what would I need in .version and how
does the incrementing work?

Do you mean 1 is added to string each time you call make?  Can you
show an example of this?

Does .version need to reside in same level as .config?  Will a 
`make clean' or `make mrproper'... destroy it? 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 965 bytes --]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 12:31:27 -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:

> I'm a little confused here... what exactly is in .version?  Say if I
> wanted to identify the kernel as belonging to a specific machine.
> HOST is vm23.  Now if I wanted to have an incrementing version string
> that included that host name what would I need in .version and how
> does the incrementing work?
> 
> Do you mean 1 is added to string each time you call make?  Can you
> show an example of this?
> 
> Does .version need to reside in same level as .config?  Will a 
> `make clean' or `make mrproper'... destroy it? 

cd /usr/src/linux
echo "$(hostname)-" >localversion1
ln -s .version localversion2

will give each kernel a name with the hostname and version
added. .version is automatically incremented each time you run make.

Make mrproper will most likely remove it, but I've not used that since
2.4.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Work is the curse of the partying class!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Harry Putnam]

Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> writes:

> cd /usr/src/linux
> echo "$(hostname)-" >localversion1
> ln -s .version localversion2
>
> will give each kernel a name with the hostname and version
> added. .version is automatically incremented each time you run make.

I'm sorry for being so dense but that isn't clear to my pea brain
either.

The idea from above is to end up with:

localversion1
localversion2 -> .version
.version

Where:
   localversion1 contains HOSTNAME
   .version contains number `N' (current build)
   localversion2 is symlinked to .version

All under /usr/src/linux ?

If you're sick of trying to explain it to me... maybe a pointer to the
documentation? 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Tom]

>maybe a pointer to the documentation?

Is there such a thing? I mean a comprehensive guide for doing such work
on (not only) gentoo systems?

Tom

[gentoo-user] localversion [was: When did bzImage move? ]

[David Relson]

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:22:29 -0600
Harry Putnam wrote:

> Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> writes:
> 
> > cd /usr/src/linux
> > echo "$(hostname)-" >localversion1
> > ln -s .version localversion2
> >
> > will give each kernel a name with the hostname and version
> > added. .version is automatically incremented each time you run make.
> 
> I'm sorry for being so dense but that isn't clear to my pea brain
> either.
> 
> The idea from above is to end up with:
> 
> localversion1
> localversion2 -> .version
> .version
> 
> Where:
>    localversion1 contains HOSTNAME
>    .version contains number `N' (current build)
>    localversion2 is symlinked to .version
> 
> All under /usr/src/linux ?
> 
> If you're sick of trying to explain it to me... maybe a pointer to the
> documentation? 
> 

With LOCALVERSION="-aaa" in linux/.config
and  "-bbb-" in linux/localversion1
and  "3"     in linux/.version
and  a symlink from localversion2 to .version
running "genkernel all" produces a kernel named "linux-2.6.28-bbb-3-aaa"

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 702 bytes --]

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:22:29 -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:

> The idea from above is to end up with:
> 
> localversion1
> localversion2 -> .version
> .version
> 
> Where:
>    localversion1 contains HOSTNAME
>    .version contains number `N' (current build)
>    localversion2 is symlinked to .version
> 
> All under /usr/src/linux ?

That's right. The contents of any localversion* files are appended to the
kernel name. .version is automatically updated by the kernel make
scripts, so linking that to a localversion* file magically gives each
kernel build a new name.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If Microsoft made cars:
"The airbag system would ask "are you sure?" before deploying."

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

Dale wrote:
> [...]
> But that would only allow you to have two kernels laying around.  Right
> now I have these:
> 
> root@smoker / # ls /boot/bzImage-2*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2355440 Jan 31 18:52 /boot/bzImage-2-28-r8-1
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2460088 Jan  2 20:13 /boot/bzImage-2.6.23-r8-7
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2288336 Dec 30 07:49 /boot/bzImage-2.6.27-r7-1
> root@smoker / #

I only use make install and my /boot looks like this:

   config -> config-2.6.28-gentoo-r1
   config-2.6.24-gentoo-r8
   config-2.6.27-gentoo-r7
   config-2.6.28-gentoo
   config-2.6.28-gentoo-r1
   config.old -> config-2.6.28-gentoo
   System.map -> System.map-2.6.28-gentoo-r1
   System.map-2.6.24-gentoo-r8
   System.map-2.6.27-gentoo-r7
   System.map-2.6.28-gentoo
   System.map-2.6.28-gentoo-r1
   System.map.old -> System.map-2.6.28-gentoo
   vmlinuz -> vmlinuz-2.6.28-gentoo-r1
   vmlinuz-2.6.24-gentoo-r8
   vmlinuz-2.6.27-gentoo-r7
   vmlinuz-2.6.28-gentoo
   vmlinuz-2.6.28-gentoo-r1
   vmlinuz.old -> vmlinuz-2.6.28-gentoo

I never changed any filename in there manualy.

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Steven Lembark]

> But that would only allow you to have two kernels laying around.  Right
> now I have these:
> 
> root@smoker / # ls /boot/bzImage-2*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2355440 Jan 31 18:52 /boot/bzImage-2-28-r8-1
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2460088 Jan  2 20:13 /boot/bzImage-2.6.23-r8-7
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2288336 Dec 30 07:49 /boot/bzImage-2.6.27-r7-1

In the general config you can add a suffix. I
use a two-letter extension that goes up with each
installed version on the specific machine (never
reached past 26**2 but I could go to three letters).

That leaves you with bzImage-2.6.27.aa, bzImage-2.6.27.ab,
bzImage-2.6.28.ac, etc. At that point you can either put
them all into your menu.lst or just hack the command line
in grub to get an older kernel.

Q: How often do you really need to go back more than one
   kernel?

If you have one especially clean, stable kernel for
disaster recovery just name it "stable" and have
two hard-wired entries for the vmlinuz and 'stable'.

-- 
Steven Lembark                                            85-09 90th St.
Workhorse Computing                                 Woodhaven, NY, 11421
lembark@wrkhors.com                                      +1 888 359 3508

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Dale]

Steven Lembark wrote:
>> But that would only allow you to have two kernels laying around.  Right
>> now I have these:
>>
>> root@smoker / # ls /boot/bzImage-2*
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2355440 Jan 31 18:52 /boot/bzImage-2-28-r8-1
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2460088 Jan  2 20:13 /boot/bzImage-2.6.23-r8-7
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2288336 Dec 30 07:49 /boot/bzImage-2.6.27-r7-1
>>     
>
> In the general config you can add a suffix. I
> use a two-letter extension that goes up with each
> installed version on the specific machine (never
> reached past 26**2 but I could go to three letters).
>
> That leaves you with bzImage-2.6.27.aa, bzImage-2.6.27.ab,
> bzImage-2.6.28.ac, etc. At that point you can either put
> them all into your menu.lst or just hack the command line
> in grub to get an older kernel.
>
> Q: How often do you really need to go back more than one
>    kernel?
>
> If you have one especially clean, stable kernel for
> disaster recovery just name it "stable" and have
> two hard-wired entries for the vmlinuz and 'stable'.
>
>   

Oh but you should see me when I am testing stuff.  I can have 15 kernels
in there.  I have gotten better lately tho. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[KH]

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

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Mark Knecht]

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:32 PM, KH <gentoo-user@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

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[KH]

>> 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
Thanks for that info!

kh

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Tom]

>Basically I build the kernel using make && make modules_install and
>then copy the kernel by hand

Good god. So I'm not alone in being a dumbass :)
And I was getting really worried that I had made a fool of myself by
posting earlier and admitting my 'stupidity' ;)

Coming from debian, with all that fancy 'make-kpkg'-stuff and not
finding any particular extensive instructions among the gentoo docs
regarding the nature of kernel building and version handling, I just
went the 'by hand route', assuming it was the 'gentoo way'.

Seeing I'm not alone, maybe the documentation should be changed to make
this (non)-issue a tad clearer. Or maybe it actually is, and I just
missed something...


Tom

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Dale]

Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:32 PM, KH <gentoo-user@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

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Mark Knecht]

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:32 PM, KH <gentoo-user@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

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Dale]

Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>     
>>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 1:32 PM, KH <gentoo-user@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

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Harry Putnam]

Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> writes:

> 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.

Dale, from one old `f..t' to another.. here is a little tip I use
dozens of ways to aid my sorry failing memory.

In ~/.inputrc

Something like (verbatim):

   "\M-f": "ls -l `find ./ -iname 'bzimage'`"

after saving ~/.inputrc, type C-x C-r to make readline re-read
it.

Then anytime you press Atl-f readline will put that command on the
cmdline for you.

So inside /usr/src/linux, Alt-f <enter> will dig up bzimage and show
any deceitful symlinks for what they are... hehe.

May not be that useful .. at least until someone sneaks in and moves
bzimage again, but I guess you can imagine the many ways putting
things in .inputrc will free you from remembering stuff.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[Dale]

Harry Putnam wrote:
> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> writes:
>
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> Dale, from one old `f..t' to another.. here is a little tip I use
> dozens of ways to aid my sorry failing memory.
>
> In ~/.inputrc
>
> Something like (verbatim):
>
>    "\M-f": "ls -l `find ./ -iname 'bzimage'`"
>
> after saving ~/.inputrc, type C-x C-r to make readline re-read
> it.
>
> Then anytime you press Atl-f readline will put that command on the
> cmdline for you.
>
> So inside /usr/src/linux, Alt-f <enter> will dig up bzimage and show
> any deceitful symlinks for what they are... hehe.
>
> May not be that useful .. at least until someone sneaks in and moves
> bzimage again, but I guess you can imagine the many ways putting
> things in .inputrc will free you from remembering stuff.
>
>
>
>   

Well, what I did was go into Konqueror and look to see where the link
was pointing too.  It told me exactly where it was.  I could have done
the same in console but I was logged into KDE already so I just did it
the Nintendo way.  LOL 

Yep, I'm only 41 but I feel like a lot older most days.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 638 bytes --]

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:08:25 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:

> 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.

Four commands plus some editing, which could contain an error making the
kernel unbootable. The alternative s one command 

make all modules_install install

Which also, as a nice bonus, backs up your kernel config too.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Member, National Association For Tagline Assimilators (NAFTA)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Stroller]

On 2 Feb 2009, at 01:05, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:08:25 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Four commands plus some editing, which could contain an error making  
> the
> kernel unbootable. The alternative s one command
>
> make all modules_install install
>
> Which also, as a nice bonus, backs up your kernel config too.

Does this not also add the system.map file & a couple of others to / 
boot ?

I think I tried this &/or genkernel & when I looked at /boot I found  
they'd littered the place with clutter.

I hope you won't be offended, but the amount of junk files this added  
made me want to barf.

I have avoided any such "complications" since, considering I don't  
consider copying a file & editing grub.conf to be anything of a  
complication myself.

To guard against unbootable kernels I have a bzImage.old which is set  
as fallback. To guard against human error when editing grub.conf the  
bzImage.old is the first (0th?) entry in the list, and finally - lest  
things go really pyriform - I have a KVM-IP.


On 2 Feb 2009, at 01:17, Tom wrote:
>> Basically I build the kernel using make && make modules_install and
>> then copy the kernel by hand
>
> Good god. So I'm not alone in being a dumbass :)

What they said.

Stroller.

[gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[»Q«]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 03:23:56 +0000
Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2 Feb 2009, at 01:17, Tom wrote:
> >> Basically I build the kernel using make && make modules_install and
> >> then copy the kernel by hand
> >
> > Good god. So I'm not alone in being a dumbass :)
> 
> What they said.

I'm another one.

I guess if I were building a lot of kernels, I'd look into these other
methods of moving files around and dealing with grub.conf, but I only
do it once every few months.

-- 
»Q«
     Kleeneness is next to Gödelness.

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Dale]

Stroller wrote:
>
> On 2 Feb 2009, at 01:05, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 15:08:25 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Four commands plus some editing, which could contain an error making the
>> kernel unbootable. The alternative s one command
>>
>> make all modules_install install
>>
>> Which also, as a nice bonus, backs up your kernel config too.
>
> Does this not also add the system.map file & a couple of others to
> /boot ?
>
> I think I tried this &/or genkernel & when I looked at /boot I found
> they'd littered the place with clutter.
>
> I hope you won't be offended, but the amount of junk files this added
> made me want to barf.
>
> I have avoided any such "complications" since, considering I don't
> consider copying a file & editing grub.conf to be anything of a
> complication myself.
>
> To guard against unbootable kernels I have a bzImage.old which is set
> as fallback. To guard against human error when editing grub.conf the
> bzImage.old is the first (0th?) entry in the list, and finally - lest
> things go really pyriform - I have a KVM-IP.
>
>
> On 2 Feb 2009, at 01:17, Tom wrote:
>>> Basically I build the kernel using make && make modules_install and
>>> then copy the kernel by hand
>>
>> Good god. So I'm not alone in being a dumbass :)
>
> What they said.
>
> Stroller.
>
>
>

I think I read somewhere that system.map file is no longer needed,
unless you want to set up things in a "odd" way.  Is that correct?

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Stroller]

On 2 Feb 2009, at 03:46, Dale wrote:
>> ...
>> I think I tried this &/or genkernel & when I looked at /boot I found
>> they'd littered the place with clutter.
>>
>> I hope you won't be offended, but the amount of junk files this added
>> made me want to barf.
>>
>> I have avoided any such "complications" since, considering I don't
>> consider copying a file & editing grub.conf to be anything of a
>> complication myself.
>> ...
>
> I think I read somewhere that system.map file is no longer needed,
> unless you want to set up things in a "odd" way.  Is that correct?

I've certainly never needed it, in several years since 2.4 kernels.  
But IIRC it is/was copied over when using these "automated kernel  
installation methods".

Stroller.
  

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Dale]

Stroller wrote:
>
> On 2 Feb 2009, at 03:46, Dale wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I think I tried this &/or genkernel & when I looked at /boot I found
>>> they'd littered the place with clutter.
>>>
>>> I hope you won't be offended, but the amount of junk files this added
>>> made me want to barf.
>>>
>>> I have avoided any such "complications" since, considering I don't
>>> consider copying a file & editing grub.conf to be anything of a
>>> complication myself.
>>> ...
>>
>> I think I read somewhere that system.map file is no longer needed,
>> unless you want to set up things in a "odd" way.  Is that correct?
>
> I've certainly never needed it, in several years since 2.4 kernels.
> But IIRC it is/was copied over when using these "automated kernel
> installation methods".
>
> Stroller.
>  

I think that is how mine got there to.  I may rename mine and reboot and
see what blows up. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[gentoo-user] Re: When did bzImage move?

[ABCD]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dale wrote:
> Stroller wrote:
>> On 2 Feb 2009, at 03:46, Dale wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> I think I tried this &/or genkernel & when I looked at /boot I found
>>>> they'd littered the place with clutter.
>>>>
>>>> I hope you won't be offended, but the amount of junk files this added
>>>> made me want to barf.
>>>>
>>>> I have avoided any such "complications" since, considering I don't
>>>> consider copying a file & editing grub.conf to be anything of a
>>>> complication myself.
>>>> ...
>>> I think I read somewhere that system.map file is no longer needed,
>>> unless you want to set up things in a "odd" way.  Is that correct?
>> I've certainly never needed it, in several years since 2.4 kernels.
>> But IIRC it is/was copied over when using these "automated kernel
>> installation methods".
>>
>> Stroller.
>>  
> 
> I think that is how mine got there to.  I may rename mine and reboot and
> see what blows up. 
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 
> 
> 

If I remember correctly, it is only used by depmod, and only if you pass
the file name on the command line. update-modules, which calls depmod,
and tends to be the main way that depmod is called (besides in the
kernel Makefile), searches the following directories for the System.map
file:
  /lib/modules/${KV}/build
  /usr/src/linux-${KV}
  /lib/modules/${KV}
  /boot
  /usr/src/linux

In each directory, it looks for the file in this order:
  System.map-genkernel-${arch}-${KV}
  System.map-genkernel-*-${KV}
  System.map-${KV}
  System.map

What this effectively means is that the copy in /boot is a backup copy,
just in case you clean the current build of your kernel
(/lib/modules/${KV}/build is a symlink to the build directory of your
kernel build, which can differ from the source directory)

tl;dr version: It won't blow up immediately, but you might run into
problems later if you `make clean` or `make mrproper` in the build tree
- - or build a different kernel in the same tree.

- --
ABCD
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkmGn8YACgkQOypDUo0oQOqZFgCffggirZ6KATIY/WcMwRxFz9O5
4BMAniHaPafRfEb6dhE1YXsfVUKJKLo2
=MqG6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 495 bytes --]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 03:23:56 +0000, Stroller wrote:

> > Which also, as a nice bonus, backs up your kernel config too.  
> 
> Does this not also add the system.map file & a couple of others to / 
> boot ?

It add three files, the kernel, the config and System map. The first is
needed, the second is useful, the third can be deleted. 


-- 
Neil Bothwick

When you go to court you are putting yourself in the hands of 12 people
that were not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] When did bzImage move?

[Mike Kazantsev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1117 bytes --]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 03:23:56 +0000
Stroller <stroller@stellar.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:

> > make all modules_install install
> >
> > Which also, as a nice bonus, backs up your kernel config too.
> 
> Does this not also add the system.map file & a couple of others to / 
> boot ?
>
> I think I tried this &/or genkernel & when I looked at /boot I found  
> they'd littered the place with clutter.
> 
> I hope you won't be offended, but the amount of junk files this added  
> made me want to barf.
> 
> I have avoided any such "complications" since, considering I don't  
> consider copying a file & editing grub.conf to be anything of a  
> complication myself.

It does, but it does that on your command.

Try 'cd /usr/src/linux && make help'. Hopefully, it'll shed some light
on this dark matter: install just launches some (your) script.

I've created one in /root/bin, so it'll cp && symlink bzImage, instead
of making two copies, you'd probably want to put just 'cp && mv && ln'
in there. Can't see much point in doing it by hand every time, really.

-- 
Mike Kazantsev // fraggod.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]