[I wrote]
> (cd $s; find * -type d) | xargs mkdir -p;
> (cd $s;
>exec find * \( -type d -exec mkdir \{} \; \) -o \
> \( -type f ! -name \*.prepend ! -name \*.append -print \) ) |
> while read f; do
This is redundant - the second mkdir is not needed.
Should be:
(cd $s; exec fi
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 11:34:09PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
>
>>One other point: kbuild must not assume that it is running on Linux.
>>Users must be able to build the Linux kernel from _any_ evironment that
>>supports Posix and has a _small_ set of GNU tools. This include
[Sam Ravnborg]
> > 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.
[Greg Banks]
> Ok, why don't you and Peter Samuelson get together
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 01:48:04AM +1000, Greg Banks wrote:
> Ok, why don't you and Peter Samuelson get together, create such a thing and
> we can compare it against kbuild2.5? If it's simple and a win, great!
The same reasons as so many other I belive:
I do not have the need, I do not have the t
On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 10:53, Robert Love wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 12:44, Steven Cole wrote:
>
> > Now, I realize that this particular problem could be easily solved by
> > simply rewording the help text for CONFIG_NR_CPUS so that one text would
> > be appropriate and accurate for all archs.
Greetings all,
Since kernel 2.5.3, the monolithic Configure.help file has been broken
up into a hundred or so Config.help files. This division potentially
allows for customized help texts for different architectures. For
example, the CONFIG_SMP help text is different in arch/i386/Config.help
an
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> 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
> >
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> > So now we assume BK? What's next, Python 2.1?
>
> Touché. No, my point was not that we can assume BK, but that we can
> assume the developer is willing to install whatever tools he needs to
> get the job done.
>
> I think the assumption is valid, assuming the deve
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 11:34:09PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
>
> One other point: kbuild must not assume that it is running on Linux.
> Users must be able to build the Linux kernel from _any_ evironment that
> supports Posix and has a _small_ set of GNU tools. This includes
> Solaris, Cygwin and
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
[Greg Banks]
> 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.
Agre
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Sam Ravnborg]
> > > Obviously the kernel build system should work for everyone irrespective
> > > of the SCM system in use. This put at least the following demands:
> > > 1) Separate OBJ and SRC tree
> > > 2) That kbuild does not touch any files in the SRC
[CCs trimmed]
[Sam Ravnborg]
> > Obviously the kernel build system should work for everyone irrespective
> > of the SCM system in use. This put at least the following demands:
> > 1) Separate OBJ and SRC tree
> > 2) That kbuild does not touch any files in the SRC tree
Agreed. It lo
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:06:39 +1000,
Greg Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I agree with Keith, shadow trees rock. I think they are probably the single
>most useful feature of kbuild 2.5. I fervently hope we end up with shadow
>trees or something like them by the end of Linux 2.5.
Greg covered
G'day,
I'll just briefly unlurk on the subject of kbuild before getting back
to the kconfig bughunt.
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 08:49:34AM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> > [...]
> There is absolutely no requirement that all kernel developers uses
> the same SCM system.
Agreed
15 matches
Mail list logo
