On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:13:20AM +, David Holland wrote:
>
> The fundamental problem is that the make library finds files by
> implicit path searches (of various kinds) which is inherently wobbly
> no matter how many bandaids are applied.
Especially in large items like libc andthe kernel...
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 01:05:18PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> > The fact that Linux has always done this wrong is not a reason to go
> > chasing after them and reinventing their mistakes.
>
> As usual, you managed to marvellously miss the point. The reason Linux does
> this (right) is the amou
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 09:24:22AM +, David Holland wrote:
> The purpose of GENERIC is (and has been since before Linux was
> invented) to include all drivers and features that can reasonably be
> expected to work. Drivers and other code that are commented out in
> GENERIC (or not present at al
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:44:17PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
> > And why should GENERIC *not* support hardware that is available, works,
> > and is of use to someone? If GENERIC is to support only the idea of
> > what an OS should look for some developers, why do we ship GENERIC at
> > all
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 02:53:58PM +0400, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> Are you saying you are going to add a special case for each foo.o file
> each time an accidental non-objdir build left foo.o in src? (and no,
> that's not a rhetoric question).
The fundamental problem is that the make library
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:59:50PM +0400, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> > Please commit changes like the following together instead of spamming
> > the source-changes list.
>
> I don't think that "spamming" source-changes is a very high priority
> consideration. OTOH, I know that per-directory
