🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Loose Nut wrote:

> Notice the question mark at the end of my sentence. It means I am
> asking if this is true. I didn't make the statement, I am just
> surprised make would not be installed. Punctuation makes the point!

Whups, I didn't. Sorry. I stand corrected. :-)

> No I don't, the original poster was referring to "making" a kernel!!!
> I know that "make"s location should be in my path so that it can be
> run from any directory. BUT, "making" the kernel is usually done from
> this directory, in SLackware anyway.

Provided you have the Makefile in the directory you execute make from, you
should be able to make the kernel anywhere - AFAIK, the paths are all
explicitly stated and referenced to the root {/} of the filesystem.

'Least wise, every time I compile a kernel, it uses directories
/usr/src/Linux/xxx direct from the makefile.

> >The make executable is located in either /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin in my
> >distribution.
> 
> If you know what your doing, that is irrelevent.

Correct-a-mundo.

> >If you can't compile your kernel from any other directory, but you *can*
> >from /usr/local/Linux, then you've got some other problem.
> 
> No, not true, in fact, having a specific directory to perform specific
> tasks helps to eliminate confusion and makes it easier to solve
> linking problems.

Again, depends on the makefile. If paths are explicitly stated, you can
compile from anywhere.

> so, DaZZa not correct.

Only in the first part, where I missed your ?. :-)

DaZZa