Subject: Re: make release vs make iso-image
To: Tracy Di Marco White <>
From: Sean Davis <>
List: tech-toolchain
Date: 04/04/2002 13:36:42
I agree wholeheartedly, and in fact I suggested this a number of months ago and
received no response whatsoever. I'd really like to see it happen - either that,
or change sysinst accordingly so that the two match. There's really no point in
"make iso-image" existing at all if the isos it creates don't work the same as
release isos you can find on ftp servers, IMHO.

As it is, I've just gotten in the habit of moving my release stuff to $ARCH/ and
doing the mkisofs with appropriate arguments (from etc/Makefile and
etc.$ARCH/ manually. This is cumbersome, because I have to sit and
watch it work instead of being able to come back to it and have it all ready.


On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 12:16:03PM -0600, Tracy Di Marco White wrote:
> I think 'make release' should build into $RELEASEDIR/$arch/ or such, so
> that make iso-image would create what sysinst expects.  sysinst tends to
> expect /i386/binary/sets for example, and make iso-image defaults to
> creating /binary/sets.  Is this an unreasonable change, is there a better
> suggestion?
> -Tracy

/~\ The ASCII                         Sean Davis
\ / Ribbon Campaign                    aka dive
 X  Against HTML
/ \ Email!