From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 5 May 2002 12:39:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 5 May 2002 12:39:49 -0400 Received: from relay1.pair.com ([209.68.1.20]:37900 "HELO relay.pair.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 5 May 2002 12:39:48 -0400 X-pair-Authenticated: 24.126.75.99 Message-ID: <3CD560FB.C6736001@kegel.com> Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 09:42:35 -0700 From: Dan Kegel Reply-To: dank@kegel.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Richard Gooch wrote: > As Keith says, the new code is faster and more robust than the old > code. Given that tracking kernel drift is a significant load on him, > it makes sense to incorporate the new code now. Once it's in, let > people get used to it and then we can look at optimising it, if need > be. Delaying introduction into the kernel tree because it's not 100% > optimised is wasteful. Keith also says: > I am temporarily omitting [modversions] which is (a) currently broken > (b) is not being used in development kernels and (c) cannot be fixed > without a radical redesign. Modversions is not needed right now and > will be added later. Everything I have done in kbuild 2.5 is needed > now [Caveat: I'm not much of a kernel hacker.] My only concern with kbuild 2.5 was the lack of modversions, but since Richard is promising to add them in before the distros need them, I would have no qualms about kbuild 2.5 totally replacing the old build system for the next 2.5 kernel. I'm sick and tired of 'make dep'. What does Alan Cox think? - Dan