From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 30 May 2002 04:47:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 30 May 2002 04:47:21 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:53007 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 30 May 2002 04:47:20 -0400 Message-ID: <3CF5E698.2020806@mandrakesoft.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 04:45:12 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/00200205 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kai Germaschewski CC: Paul P Komkoff Jr , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.5.19 - What's up with the kernel build? In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Kai Germaschewski wrote: >On Wed, 29 May 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > >>Well, I really like Keith's kbuild25 too, but Linus said (at least once) >>he wanted an evolution to a new build system... not an unreasonable >>request to at least consider. Despite Keith's quality of code (again -- >>I like kbuild25), his 3 patch submissions seemed a lot like ultimatums, >>very "take it or leave it dammit". Not the best way to win friends and >>influence people. >> >>If Keith is indeed leaving it, I'm hoping someone will maintain it, or >>work with Kai to integrate it into 2.5.x. >> >> > >Oh well, it really wasn't my intention to start the good old kbuild-2.5 >thread at all. > >Anyway, I believe kbuild-2.5 has lots of useful ideas and I'll go pick >pieces - from kbuild-2.5, from dancing-makefiles, from stuff I've done >myself and work on improving the current build system. But I believe in >make, and don't think I'll move away from it. > >One thing these patches show is that gradual improvement is actually >possible, so far the kbuild process has gained quite some features with a >lot of small patches - and some bigger ones, but these are only trivial >cleanups. > >Of course it happened that I introduced some bugs in the process, but the >fact that fixes were posted to linux-kernel by the next morning shows that >it's obviously possible for other people to grasp what's going on and fix >bugs. Rules.make is some 400 lines currently, that's quite a difference to >kbuild-2.5 core's 30000 lines of code. > >Anyway, fortunately it's not up to me to decide what happens. From my >perspective the plan is to go on with this gradual improvement, in >particular >o fix dependencies / modversions (that includes "make dep" going away) >o allow for separate objdir (this one is actually easy for 95% of the > compiled files which use standard rules, and lots of work for the > remaining 5%. So it'll take time to remove the 5% special cases, after > that things are pretty easy) > > A small request to add to the list: Current 2.4.x kernels build (at least on x86) with -nostdinc -I /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-mandrake-linux-gnu/3.0.4/include added to CFLAGS... IMOit is a good idea in general to build all kernel code this way. (note that userland programs created during build should not use this rule, of course)