On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:36:11AM +1000, Greg Banks wrote:
> I think the problem of Makefile bits in shadow trees is really
> quite difficult. Keith's solution of pre-processing Makefiles and
> Makefile.appends from all the shadow trees into a combined Makefile
> doesn't handle all the cases but is the best attempt I've seen so
> far.
Keith's approach is the only working attempt to handle shadow trees
outside a modern SCM tool.
So obviously it is the best so far.
> So now we assume BK? What's next, Python 2.1?
People are not forced to use BK whatsoever. Last time I looked there
were still regulary patches available at kernel.org - where does this
come into the picture.
But on the other hand, if people want decent support for parrallel
development then a modern (not CVS) SCM tools is perferable. Be that
BitKeeper, PRCS, arch or whatever.
If people refuses to use existing tools solving a specific problem
then thay are on their own. I see no point in integrating this deep
into kbuild because some people do not want to, or do not understand
how to do parrallel development using a proper SCM tool.
This does not stop any attemp to make a simple wrapper that
creates and maintain a BUILD_TREE.
To check timestamps and link accordinly should not take too much time,
at least not at the second run.
Sam
-------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by:
ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/
_______________________________________________
kbuild-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
