Re: Linux 2.6.23-rc9 and a heads-up for the 2.6.24 series..

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/2/07, Alistair John Strachan <alistair@devzero.co.uk> wrote:
> > This is certainly a tool issue, but if I use Debian's kernel-image "make-kpkg"
> > wrapper around the kernel build system, it fails with:
> >
> > 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.
> 
> I believe most sane tools would be using the output of uname -m, so a 
> possible way to fix this would be fixing the data passed to userspace 
> from uname. However, that might be the case that it creates a new set 
> of problems too, with tools relying on the output of uname -m to 
> determine wheter the machine is 32 or 64 bit, and so on.

there are two problems with the use of uname -m:

- the build machine architecture is not necessarily the same as the
  target architecture. (for example i cross-compile all my 32-bit
  kernels on a 64-bit box.)

- we kept uname -m compatile. multilib depends on it, and other pieces
  of userspace as well. So uname -m still outputs 'i386' on 32-bit and
  'x86_64' on 64-bit - not 'x86'.

a symlink looks like the best solution to me.

	Ingo