On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 11:00:07AM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote: > Sam> Eventually - yes. But not just now. Kbuild was introduced > Sam> because it was needed in the top-level directory and it made > Sam> good sense to do so. But for now keeping Makefile is a good > Sam> choice. This is anyway what people are used to. > > OK, disregard my suggestion then. Should we patch > Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt to correct the current > documentation, which says: > > The preferred name for the kbuild files is 'Kbuild' but 'Makefile' > will continue to be supported. All new developmen is expected to use > the Kbuild filename.
I've just checked in the following patch: diff --git a/Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt b/Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt index 99d51a5..a9c00fa 100644 --- a/Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt +++ b/Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt @@ -106,9 +106,9 @@ This document is aimed towards normal de Most Makefiles within the kernel are kbuild Makefiles that use the kbuild infrastructure. This chapter introduce the syntax used in the kbuild makefiles. -The preferred name for the kbuild files is 'Kbuild' but 'Makefile' will -continue to be supported. All new developmen is expected to use the -Kbuild filename. +The preferred name for the kbuild files are 'Makefile' but 'Kbuild' can +be used and if both a 'Makefile' and a 'Kbuild' file exists then the 'Kbuild' +file will be used. Section 3.1 "Goal definitions" is a quick intro, further chapters provide more details, with real examples. _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
