Bug 203531 - /sbin/installkernel should accept INSTALL_PATH as $4
/sbin/installkernel should accept INSTALL_PATH as $4
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: mkinitrd (Show other bugs)
5
All Linux
medium Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Peter Jones
David Lawrence
bzcl34nup
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2006-08-22 06:37 EDT by Robert P. J. Day
Modified: 2008-05-06 12:15 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-05-06 12:15:38 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Robert P. J. Day 2006-08-22 06:37:23 EDT
in the current 2.6.17 kernel source tree, the script arch/i386/boot/install.sh
contains the following:
...
# Arguments:
#   $1 - kernel version
#   $2 - kernel image file
#   $3 - kernel map file
#   $4 - default install path (blank if root directory)
...
so this script is clearly accepting the install path as the fourth parameter. 
further down that same script, we read:

... exec /sbin/${CROSS_COMPILE}installkernel "$@" ...

so, just as clearly, installkernel is being invoked with the same set of
parameters (including that fourth parm for install path).

  however, if you read /sbin/installkernel, you see:
...
if [ -z "$INSTALL_PATH" -o "$INSTALL_PATH" == "/boot" ]; then
    INSTALL_PATH=/boot
    cfgLoader=1
fi

KERNEL_VERSION=$1
BOOTIMAGE=$2
MAPFILE=$3
...

note how INSTALL_PATH is not being extracted from the parameter list, but from
the set of environment variables.  this just happens to work since the variable
INSTALL_PATH is set and exported from the top-level kernel source tree Makefile,
but it does seem inconsistent.

i'd guess the proper approach would be for installkernel to do:

INSTALL_PATH=$4

rday
Comment 1 Bug Zapper 2008-04-03 23:34:54 EDT
Fedora apologizes that these issues have not been resolved yet. We're
sorry it's taken so long for your bug to be properly triaged and acted
on. We appreciate the time you took to report this issue and want to
make sure no important bugs slip through the cracks.

If you're currently running a version of Fedora Core between 1 and 6,
please note that Fedora no longer maintains these releases. We strongly
encourage you to upgrade to a current Fedora release. In order to
refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs
for releases which are no longer maintained and closing them.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LifeCycle/EOL

If this bug is still open against Fedora Core 1 through 6, thirty days
from now, it will be closed 'WONTFIX'. If you can reporduce this bug in
the latest Fedora version, please change to the respective version. If
you are unable to do this, please add a comment to this bug requesting
the change.

Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled
these issues to this point.

The process we are following is outlined here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp

We will be following the process here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this
doesn't happen again.

And if you'd like to join the bug triage team to help make things
better, check out http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Comment 2 Bug Zapper 2008-05-06 12:15:37 EDT
This bug is open for a Fedora version that is no longer maintained and
will not be fixed by Fedora. Therefore we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen thus bug against that version.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.