[Kai Germaschewski]
> However, I don't think it's hard to verify that my patch works as
> well, it's about ten lines added to Rules.make. It's particularly
> easy to verify that it doesn't change behavior for objects listed in
> $(list-multi) at all.
Yes, we can say this, but people are right
On Tue, 1 May 2001, J . A . Magallon wrote:
> On 05.01 Keith Owens wrote:
> >
> > The patch appears to work but is it worth applying now? The existing
> > 2.4 rules work fine and the entire kbuild system will be rewritten for
> > 2.5, including the case you identified here. It struck me as a
On Tue, 1 May 2001, J . A . Magallon wrote:
On 05.01 Keith Owens wrote:
The patch appears to work but is it worth applying now? The existing
2.4 rules work fine and the entire kbuild system will be rewritten for
2.5, including the case you identified here. It struck me as a decent
[Kai Germaschewski]
However, I don't think it's hard to verify that my patch works as
well, it's about ten lines added to Rules.make. It's particularly
easy to verify that it doesn't change behavior for objects listed in
$(list-multi) at all.
Yes, we can say this, but people are right to
On Tue, 1 May 2001 01:31:20 +0200,
"J . A . Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 05.01 Keith Owens wrote:
>> The patch appears to work but is it worth applying now? The existing
>> 2.4 rules work fine and the entire kbuild system will be rewritten for
>> 2.5
>
>We will have to live with 2.4
On 05.01 Keith Owens wrote:
>
> The patch appears to work but is it worth applying now? The existing
> 2.4 rules work fine and the entire kbuild system will be rewritten for
> 2.5, including the case you identified here. It struck me as a decent
> change but for no benefit and, given that the
On Tue, 1 May 2001 00:43:42 +0200 (CEST),
Kai Germaschewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I sent this to the kbuild list about a week ago, and I received exactly
>zero replies, so I'm posting to l-k now. This may mean that the idea is
>totally stupid (but I'd like to know) or unquestionably good
I sent this to the kbuild list about a week ago, and I received exactly
zero replies, so I'm posting to l-k now. This may mean that the idea is
totally stupid (but I'd like to know) or unquestionably good (that's what
I'd prefer :), well, maybe I'll get some feedback this time.
SHORT VERSION:
I sent this to the kbuild list about a week ago, and I received exactly
zero replies, so I'm posting to l-k now. This may mean that the idea is
totally stupid (but I'd like to know) or unquestionably good (that's what
I'd prefer :), well, maybe I'll get some feedback this time.
SHORT VERSION:
On Tue, 1 May 2001 00:43:42 +0200 (CEST),
Kai Germaschewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I sent this to the kbuild list about a week ago, and I received exactly
zero replies, so I'm posting to l-k now. This may mean that the idea is
totally stupid (but I'd like to know) or unquestionably good
On 05.01 Keith Owens wrote:
The patch appears to work but is it worth applying now? The existing
2.4 rules work fine and the entire kbuild system will be rewritten for
2.5, including the case you identified here. It struck me as a decent
change but for no benefit and, given that the 2.4
On Tue, 1 May 2001 01:31:20 +0200,
J . A . Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 05.01 Keith Owens wrote:
The patch appears to work but is it worth applying now? The existing
2.4 rules work fine and the entire kbuild system will be rewritten for
2.5
We will have to live with 2.4 until 2.6,
12 matches
Mail list logo
