From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:56:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:56:22 -0400 Received: from smtpnotes.altec.com ([209.149.164.10]:4361 "HELO smtpnotes.altec.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:56:21 -0400 X-Lotus-FromDomain: ALTEC From: Wayne.Brown@altec.com To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <86256BBC.0072F8A9.00@smtpnotes.altec.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:53:40 -0500 Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Yes, the build system is mostly the same across all these versions -- that's my point. I want it to STAY the same as long as possible. What's the relationship between kbuild and the size of the kernel source? Are you saying a new build system would make the kernel smaller? Or do you mean that it would be faster, or would require recompiling smaller portions of the kernel after patching? That wouldn't help me, because I'll never trust *any* build system -- even good ol' "make" itself -- to make the right determination of what to recompile after applying one of Linus's or Alan's patch sets. I *always* "make mrproper" and recompile *everything* after patching. (Back in my Minix days I usually didn't stop with recompiling the kernel, but recompiled everything -- libraries, user-space programs like "cat" and "ls," etc. -- after applying patches. Minix upgrades frequently took me 10 hours or more on my 8088 system.) As for speed, my Pentium II laptop compiles 2.5.15 a lot faster than my old 486 desktop compiled 0.99pl13 (my first kernel). Dave Jones on 05/17/2002 03:09:22 PM To: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec@Altec cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3 Compare and contrast.. -rw-r--r-- 1 davej users 31426560 Jan 9 2001 linux-2.0.39.tar -rw-r--r-- 1 davej users 85442560 Nov 6 2001 linux-2.2.20.tar -rw-r--r-- 1 davej users 131727360 Feb 25 20:15 linux-2.4.18.tar -rw-r--r-- 1 davej users 152524800 May 10 00:11 linux-2.5.15.tar Spot the pattern? Exponential growth. not only that, but for the most part, the build system is the same across all of these. If we continue growing at the current rate without doing something about the build process, we're all going to be needing 8-way Opterons with several GB of memory to get any work done. If kbuild2.5 is faster, and produces the same end result (or better still, more accurate builds), there's no valid reason to ignore it that I can see. Dave. -- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/