[kbuild-devel] Re: State of the new config & build system

2001-12-29 Thread Rik van Riel
On Sat, 29 Dec 2001, Keith Owens wrote: > ps. I don't want mail discussing individual bug fixes to mkdep. Code > that does not fix _all_ 9 bugs listed in makefile-2.5_make_dep.html > is pointless. I guess you presented a good point to not ignore bug number 10 (the speed one) either. ;)

[kbuild-devel] Re: State of the new config & build system

2001-12-29 Thread Rik van Riel
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Having per-function comment blocks, in contrast, makes sense to have > inline: > > - you read the comment when you read the function > - you might even update the comment when you update the function > - you have a reasonable 1:1 relationship. Pers

Re: [kbuild-devel] Converting the 2.5 kernel to kbuild 2.5

2001-12-06 Thread Rik van Riel
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Rob Landley wrote: > 3) The fact Linus was cc'd on this before I trimmed it suggests to me > that people are still wishfully thinking that the battle they lost > before the linux-kernel summit would just magically re-open at the > last minute. It's not about the fact that rei

Re: [kbuild-devel] Converting the 2.5 kernel to kbuild 2.5

2001-12-04 Thread Rik van Riel
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > Don't do it! > > A stable kernel should be stable also on the building tools. > > That will be Marcelo's call, not mine. Ohhh, that sounds a lot like "I'm not the maintainer, I'm not responsible for the code I submit" ;))) *runs like hell* Rik --

[kbuild-devel] Re: Maintainers master list?

2001-06-22 Thread Rik van Riel
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > I have proposed that the MAINTAINERS file should be replaced by > metadata markup in the kernel sources themselves, distributed so that > it will naturally be kept up to date by the people named in it and > mechanically gathered into a generated MAINT

[kbuild-devel] Re: Request for comment -- a better attribution system

2001-04-22 Thread Rik van Riel
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Horst von Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Then explain to everybody here in a language they'll understand _what_ is > > wrong and _why_. Then propose a solution. > > I'm on it. You'll see the results fairly shortly. "Here, have this solution. I'm su

[kbuild-devel] Re: Request for comment -- a better attribution system

2001-04-22 Thread Rik van Riel
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > And before you write me off as one of the $BIGNUM clueless > visionaries, you might do well to remember that I actually *have* > radically changed the world lkml operates in. At least twice. Let me see ... 1) fetchmail, allowing dialup users to get

[kbuild-devel] Re: Request for comment -- a better attribution system

2001-04-22 Thread Rik van Riel
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > > I've had my nose rubbed in how things really work. That's why I want > > > to fix the things that are broken about how things really work. > > > > Then you're going to conjure up

[kbuild-devel] Re: Cross-referencing frenzy

2001-04-18 Thread Rik van Riel
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Richard Gooch wrote: > > CONFIG_APM_IGNORE_SUSPEND_BOUNCE: arch/i386/kernel/apm.c > > CONFIG_DEVFS_TTY_COMPAT: Documentation/filesystems/devfs/ChangeLog > > CONFIG_DEVFS_BOOT_OPTIONS: Documentation/filesystems/devfs/ChangeLog > > CONFIG_DEVFS_DISABLE_OLD_NAMES: Documentation/