Oleg Verych wrote:
> i just am going to see "a big picture", which is without `make`. It
> doesn't matter, if `make` was misused for 20 years. What is matter, that
> for 9 years, after this topic was brought to LKML by the paper author,
> nothing has changed in the linux build system, WRT this problematic.
But we don't use make!
i.e. read our Makefile's, run make from a subdir: it doesn't behave and
seems make.
Our system is already a lot different to regular make building systems,
and to regular Makefiles. We have an own language and a lot of hacks to
make it working with make. So I don't think it is usefull to compare
our system to recursive or non-recursive "nearly regulear" building systems.
Anyway "make" failed to do the proper job. You will read in a lot
(near the totality) of projects that if you update a program, you should
do a "make clean": the actuals make systems don't track all the dependencies
(I think we should blame automake), so what is the puopose of make? ;-)
BTW on kernel there was already few projects and nearly working systems
without recurse on subdirs, so as first step I think you (Vegar) should
check in archieves why the last kbuild (makefile part) was discarded.
(IIRC the main (non design) discution was on regular LKML, at the
beginning of 2.5 branch)
BTW, I see linux Makefile as the old configuration system: it was an
own language, but based with shell and run with shell (the real
kernel configurations was executed by a shell script, but it was
discuraged to use shell features not in the configuration language spec).
A language, not a shell script.
Reading the kernel makefiles, I think we can rewrite it in C
(and leave the main Makefile and the architecture "boot" Makefiles).
IMHO it seems simpler and more maintainable that the numerous hacks of
actual system. Our kbuild language seems simple for such task.
ciao
cate
>
> Maybe someone is going to get rid of gotos, or doing whatever other
> "crap" CS professors think? Only reality shows, what results of
> any kind of hand wavings or implementation are. For now this are:
>
> * gotos are good in the system programming, when used appropriately
> (it seems, that famous kernel developer doesn't get it right
> sometimes (anytime?) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>);
>
> the main feature request for C lang lawyers is: "labels should have
> addresses, programmer can read and manipulate."
>
> * micro kernels -- no micro kernels (see the WWWeb :)
> ____
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
