On 03/18/2011 09:25 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 03/16/2011 02:44 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > Hi, > > > I'm happy to announce that we now have a 0.9.32-rc3. > This is > planned to be the last RC before the release which we aim at > doing > in 2 weeks, i.e end of March. > > Please test this release candidate > and report back. So in the Linux kernel, make V=1 gives you the > actual command lines that make is calling. That's also how it works > in uClibc 0.9.31. But now, make V=1 does... nothing that I can see. > Instead to get the actual kernel command lines you have to say V=2. > But if you feed V=2 to the kernel build, you get pages and pages of > _why_ it's rebuilding each thing it's building, a flood of > dependency information which makes the output pretty much > unreadable. So uClibc used ot work like the kernel does, and no it > no longer does, for no readily apparent reason. This broke my build > scripts, or at least the ability to easily figure out why arm eabi > and i686 are including libgcc_eh.a in their build but mips and > arm-oabi aren't... Rob > > > Hi Rob, > > V=1 is quiet plus defines. V=2 are verbatim commands. I don't know (nor > care) what the kernel does
So your build infrastructure (including make menuconfig and V=1) was copied from the Linux kernel, the previous release had a meaning that was compatible with the Linux kernel, and you decided to gratuitously change it because you don't care. > for V=2 but if you want make to spit out > dependency decisions then just run > make -d -p > or something. I don't want dependency decisions. I want V=1 to give me verbatim commands the ay it did in 0.9.31. You broke compatability with your _previous_release_. > Note that we do _not_ use kbuild in uClibc, so please > don't expect kbuild behaviour... I expected 0.9.31 behavior. Rob _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
