Re: no version magic, tainting kernel.

[Christian Zander <zander@minion.de>]

On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 10:29:50PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> 
> Judging on the number of people that got bid by the mach- include
> changes, I conclude that we better ask people to use kbuild.
> 

Fair enough.

> The whole issues boils down to the following options:
> 1) The "kernel-headers" package shall be extended to include the
> vital part of kbuild
> 2) To develop modules you need the full kernel src
> 3) Do-it-yourself makefiles
> 
> Can we agree on that - and take the discussion from there?
> 
> In 1) and 2) you have total freedom to change options etc.
> Several architectures filter out generic options they dislike.
> Adding extra options is supported by kbuild (EXTRA_CFLAGS).
> 
> In 3) you have all possibilities to screw up things. You would
> probarly argue you have full flexibility.  But then I wonder what
> kind of flexibility you need for your module, that is not needed for
> all the modules included in the kernel?  To take your argument and
> turn it around: What technical reasons are there to avoid kbuild?
> 
> Please realise that you will be hit by changes in include paths,
> compiler options etc.  That is visible in the number of mails seen
> on lkml the last couple of months.
> 

The problem isn't necessarily lack of flexibility, but the lack of
unity across kernel versions. I agree that kbuild is the preferable
solution for Linux 2.5, but it isn't for all incarnations of Linux
2.4 and definetely not for Linux 2.2. I do realize that changes have
resulted in problems for external build systems and understand that
future changes may result in similar problems.

I guess a reasonable solution is adjusting existing Makefiles to be
smart enough to detect kbuild and use it when available.

-- 
christian zander
zander@minion.de