Re: [kbuild-devel] linux kernel conf 0.6

2002-10-03 Thread Roman Zippel
Hi, (I almost forgot to reply to this one, sorry for the delay.) On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Kai Germaschewski wrote: I'm not particularly fond of these md5sum hacks. I don't think it's all that annoying for the developer, either, it's basically just a alias make=make LKC_GENPARSER=1 (Of course,

Re: [kbuild-devel] linux kernel conf 0.6

2002-09-23 Thread Kai Germaschewski
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Roman Zippel wrote: I intentionally only printed a message and errored out in this case, and I think that's more useful, particularly for people doing make all 21 make.log which now may take forever waiting for input. You should have tried this first :) :

Re: [kbuild-devel] linux kernel conf 0.6

2002-09-22 Thread Roman Zippel
Hi, On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Sam Ravnborg wrote: I have been working on integrating lkc with kbuild. Here is the result. Thanks, nice work. :) Rules.make - Added infrastructure to support host-ccprogs, in other words support tools written (partly) in c++. There are all compiled with gcc

Re: [kbuild-devel] linux kernel conf 0.6

2002-09-22 Thread Kai Germaschewski
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: One cosmetic thing I mentioned to Roman, Config.new needs to be changed to something better, like conf.in or build.conf or somesuch. I agree. (But I'm not particularly good at coming up with names ;) build.conf is maybe not too bad considering that

Re: [kbuild-devel] linux kernel conf 0.6

2002-09-22 Thread Roman Zippel
Hi, On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Kai Germaschewski wrote: I'm still not happy at least for the .config does not exist case. Since when I forget to cp ../config-2.5 .config, I don't really want make oldconfig, I want to do the forgotten cp. Adding this check to the silent mode is trivial. bye,

Re: [kbuild-devel] linux kernel conf 0.6

2002-09-22 Thread Jeff Garzik
Kai Germaschewski wrote: On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: AFAICS, quiet only means the same thing as the traditional make oldconfig, but suppressing questions where the answers are known. (Which I think is fine) yeah, that's fine with me too I was just referring to the following,