On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 11:54:29PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> Linus and Kai do not think that shadow trees are useful. I have given
> up explaining why they are useful. Now I am waiting until Kai hits a
> dead end using the current syntax (there is no way that the current
> syntax can cope with shadow trees) then I will try to raise some
> interest in using the new syntax to get the advanced features of kbuild
> 2.5.
Hi Keith.
To me the functionality provided by kbuild-2.5 with respect to shadow
trees belongs to the SCM system.
What kbuild-2.5 address is only the simplest part namely the compile step.
A proper SCM system allow you to do parrallel development with a
seperate integration branch, or whatever term the SCM in question
like to use.
Why do you see so much added value in kbuild support for shadow trees
compared to what a proper SCM tool give you?
Personally I do not see this feature as important enough to justify
a new syntax for all makefiles in the tree.
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by:
ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/
_______________________________________________
kbuild-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
