On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 23:47 +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> >


> > This said, I agree that adding a fake module directory to capture the
> > flags set by the main kernel Makefile is one step beyond ugliness; the
> > other approach being to only provide a 2.6 Makefile frag. As 2007
> > approaches, I think that anyone still involved with projects relying on
> > 2.4 kernels do know how to build 2.4 modules for the targeted platform.
> I think the example modules should compile on any platform and the 
> "kernel CFLAGS capturing" trick is the most straight-forward way to do 
> it for 2.4. It simplifies our life, avoids fiddling with various arch 
> dependent flags in the Makefile, which will be even more ugly, and it 
> serves as an example on how to get proper flags. Therefore I tend to add 
> an appropriate script to the "scripts" subdirectory.

That would be acceptable too; the capture trick is ugly, but if we
really want to have the generic examples available to all platforms, I
see no other way to get the exact compilation and link flags. So it's
basically a matter of choice: either we don't provide any Makefile frag
for 2.4, or we implement the capture trick so that every platform can
compile them.


Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to