From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:24:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:24:50 -0500 Received: from 12-231-249-244.client.attbi.com ([12.231.249.244]:786 "HELO kroah.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:24:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:27:55 -0800 From: Greg KH To: torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: hpa@zytor.com, rmk@arm.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.62 Message-ID: <20030219202754.GA17593@kroah.com> References: <20030219193907.GA17248@kroah.com> <20030219200935.GB1623@mars.ravnborg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030219200935.GB1623@mars.ravnborg.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 09:09:35PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 11:39:07AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > usr/lib/arch/arm/MCONFIG | 26 > Any good reasons for such a screaming name? > makefile.config eventually. Ask Peter :) > > usr/lib/arch/arm/Makefile.inc | 31 > > No extension is used for arch/arm/Makefile > Why does klibc differ in this respect? > [An answer that tell me that arch/arm/Makefile should > change is fine with me..] Ask Russell :) > > usr/lib/makeerrlist.pl | 80 > > usr/lib/socketcalls.pl | 75 > > This mixture of code and scripts to generate code hursts my eye. > What about usr/scripts/. But they are the scripts used to build the code in usr/lib. I don't care where they go, that's just where they were in the klibc tarball. > I assume you do not want them in scripts/ Yeah, I wouldn't think they should go their either. thanks, greg k-h