Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 05:42:53PM +1000, Greg Banks wrote:
> >
> > [...] kbuild-2.5 does not replace something simple with
> > something complex, instead it replaces something complex and broken with
> > something of greater complexity and not broken. [...]
>
> About curr
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> 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 h
[Keith Owens]
> prepend/append are logical wrappers, the order is prepend top to
> bottom, base file, append bottom to top. This must be done over all
> source trees.
I think my hack wrapper does that already.
> prepend/append entries in shadow trees below the base version of a
> file must be
[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
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
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 08:49:34AM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> Compiling from an SCM system only works if everybody uses the same SCM
> tool, that is not an option for the kernel. kbuild 2.5 works for
> everyone, no matter what other tools the developer uses.
This does not make sense.
The kernel
Hi,
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Keith Owens wrote:
> Even with a decent SCM like PRCS, handling multiple patches and testing
> all the combinations is a nightmare. I was working on ia64, xfs and
> kdb and had to ensure that these patch combinations worked :-
If you just want to test patches, a "cp -l
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:14:58 +0200,
Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 11:54:29PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
>
>> Linus and Kai do not think that shadow trees are useful. I have given
>> up explaining why they are useful. Now I am waiting until Kai hits a
>> dead en
On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 12:41:28AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Why do you see so much added value in kbuild support for shadow trees
> > compared to what a proper SCM tool give you?
>
> For my (linux on s390) purpose, shadow trees are the most important
> feature of kb25, because they allow u
On Sunday 23 June 2002 22:14, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> To me the functionality provided by kbuild-2.5 with respect to shadow
> trees belongs to the SCM system.
> What kbuild-2.5 address is only the simplest part namely the compile step.
> A proper SCM system allow you to do parrallel development with
On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 11:54:29PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> Linus and Kai do not think that shadow trees are useful. I have given
> up explaining why they are useful. Now I am waiting until Kai hits a
> dead end using the current syntax (there is no way that the current
> syntax can cope wit
On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 12:14:59 +0100,
Jak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here are some more questions/observations on using kbuild : I hope
>this kind of feedback is useful.
>
>1) what version of make ? Makefile-2.5 suggests I need at least 3.79.1
>but kbuild-2.5.txt says 3.7[78] will work ( section
Keith,
thanks for your previous reply.
( Re: kbuild2.5 does not actually install vmlinux for debugging as claimed )
Here are some more questions/observations on using kbuild : I hope
this kind of feedback is useful.
1) what version of make ? Makefile-2.5 suggests I need at least 3.79.1
24 matches
Mail list logo
