The latest version is always available at http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/
Release 1.9.16: Fri Dec 28 01:02:17 EST 2001
* Rulebase and help sync with 2.4.18-pre1/2.5.2-pre3.
* More logic fixes by Richard Todd.
* Split out ISA_CARDS from ISA in the rulebase.
There is now a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Release 1.12 of kernel build for kernel 2.5 (kbuild 2.5) is available.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/kbuild/, Package kbuild-2.5, download
release 1.12.
This is ready to go to Linus for inclusion in 2.5.[
> Unlike the broken make dep, kbuild 2.5 extracts accurate dependencies
> by using the -MD option of cpp and post processing the cpp list. The
> post processing code is slow because the current design requires every
> compile to read a complete list of all the files, giving O(n^2)
> effects. Mar
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:47:23 -0800,
Larry McVoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 12:41:48PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:37:39 -0800,
>> Larry McVoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >A couple of questions:
>> >
>> >a) will 2.5 be as fast as the current syst
Tom Rini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think Keith wanted a very small time window tho (~24 hrs, barring big
> supprises). But if we're going to be worried about the build time,
> kbuild-2.5 and cml2 aren't co-dependant, yes? I know kbuild-2.5 works
> w/o cml2, and last I tried (ages ago admitedly) c
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 12:41:48PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:37:39 -0800,
> Larry McVoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >A couple of questions:
> >
> >a) will 2.5 be as fast as the current system? Faster?
>
> At the moment kbuild 2.5 ranges from 10% faster on small builds
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 12:35:50PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:15:45 -0800,
> Larry McVoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[talking about kbuild 2.5 speed]
> >Then it does seem reasonable to ask that the new one is at least as fast
> >as the old one.
>
> kbuild 2.4 is fast bu
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:37:39 -0800,
Larry McVoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A couple of questions:
>
>a) will 2.5 be as fast as the current system? Faster?
At the moment kbuild 2.5 ranges from 10% faster on small builds to 100%
slower on a full kernel build. But that is using slow core code wh
Okay, here's a patch for 2.4.16 to get PPC mostly working. It still
only compiles up to 'vmlinux' (I'm waiting for a 2.4.17 or 2.4.18-pre
based update to start on the boot stuffs), but should have all of the
nits pointed out before fixed. It also makes -Wa,-mppc64bridge a
constant extra_aflag (I
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001 02:22:01 +0100 (CET),
Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
>> That is such an unutterably horrible concept that the very tentacles
>> of Cthulhu himself must twitch in dread at the thought. The last thing
>> anyone sane wants to
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 02:22:01AM +0100, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> > That is such an unutterably horrible concept that the very tentacles
> > of Cthulhu himself must twitch in dread at the thought. The last thing
> > anyone sane wants to do is have to m
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:15:45 -0800,
Larry McVoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[talking about kbuild 2.5 speed]
>Then it does seem reasonable to ask that the new one is at least as fast
>as the old one.
kbuild 2.4 is fast but inaccurate, kbuild 2.5 is slower but accurate.
Pick one.
I am sure that
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 07:57:38PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Maybe keep them both in the
> > tree until this issue is worked out ? That way those who want to
> > play with kbuild can do so, and those who build a few doze
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001 01:54:42 +0100 (CET),
Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
>> ..., and Keith's stuff is stable
>> enough that he's now adding features like kernel-image type selection
>> that were obviously way down his to-do list.
>
>How far do
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> That is such an unutterably horrible concept that the very tentacles
> of Cthulhu himself must twitch in dread at the thought. The last thing
> anyone sane wants to do is have to maintain two parallel build systems
> at the same time.
Funny, I could
Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Maybe keep them both in the
> tree until this issue is worked out ? That way those who want to
> play with kbuild can do so, and those who build a few dozen
> kernels a day don't have to twiddle thumbs.
That is such an unuttera
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> ..., and Keith's stuff is stable
> enough that he's now adding features like kernel-image type selection
> that were obviously way down his to-do list.
How far down the list was "make it not take twice as long
to build the kernel as kbuild 2.4" ? Kei
Linus (and Marcelo): I understand that right at the moment you have
higher priorities than merging in the new build system. Keith Owens
and I agree with those priorities, so please consider the following to
be information rather than pressure for action.
Keith's kbuild-2.5 and my CML2 both appea
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> The other part of the bio rewrite has been to get rid of another coupling:
> the coupling between "struct buffer_head" (which is used for a limited
> kind of memory management by a number of filesystems) and the act of
> actually just doing IO.
>
> I used to think that
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Keith Owens wrote:
> >
> > Linus, the time has come to convert the 2.5 kernel to kbuild 2.5.
>
> We're getting the block IO layer in shape first, the time has not come for
> _anything_ else before that.
>
> Linus
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> Lots of luck ... please pass your crack pipe arounds so the rest of us
> idiots can see your vision or lack of ...
Heh. I think I must have passed it on to you long ago, and you never gave
it back, you sneaky bastard ;)
The vision, btw, is to get th
Eric S. Raymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> We have an entire new front end in this release, code based on a tree width
^^
> that shows a nice folder view of the configuration menus. Install and try
> out `make treeconfig' to
The latest version is always available at http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2/
Release 1.9.15: Thu Dec 27 04:44:31 EST 2001
* Alternate tree-widget-based X interface by W. Chang
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> introduced.
* Corrected a CML2 compiler bug in `suppress depends' handling,
23 matches
Mail list logo
