public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wayne.Brown@altec.com
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 12:32:25 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <86256BBD.00606F38.00@smtpnotes.altec.com> (raw)



Why?  Because I didn't mention who said it?  OK, it was Giacomo Catenazzi.  You
can read the original article yourself at
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=100748835520343&w=2 if you wish.
In case you don't here's the relevant part.  I had asked what the differences
were between the old and new versions, and Giacomo replied with this:


>The new kbuild-2.5 (also the new Makefile)
>will no more work with your command:
>make dep: is no more needed
>make bzlilo modules modules_install: it would be a simble
>make install: (and you configure with CML1/CML2 what install
>means).


Satisfied now?  Or did you mean I should have installed kbuild2.5 and found out
for myself?  If I had any interest in using it that would be reasonable.  But
all I wanted was to find out how bad things are going to be after I eventually
get stuck with it.  So I asked for information from someone who already knew
about it.  Do you ever take anyone else's word for anything, or do you always
have to try everything out for yourself?

This is my last post on this subject.  There doesn't seem to be anyone here who
understands the concept of being satisfied with a tool and seeing no need to
improve it.  If I'm not satisfied with something, I'll expend large amounts of
time, effort and money to achieve even trivial improvements.  But if I *am*
satisfied with something, then I don't want to spend even a trivial amount of
effort trying to achieve "improvements" that I don't need.

I never expected everyone to abandon their own needs to satisfy mine.  It would
be nice if they tried to accomodate my needs while satisfying their own, but I
didn't expect that either.  What I expect is that kbuild 2.5 (and eventually
CML2) will show up in the kernel sooner or later, and I'll just have to live
with it.  All my original message on this subject was intended to do was to
point out that not everyone was happy with the situation.  The rest of you have
reacted as if you're afraid Linus might listen to me and do it my way.  Well,
relax, I doubt he cares any more about what I want than the rest of you do.  At
least he didn't feel the need to jump down my throat about it.

I don't need the new kbuild.  I don't want the new kbuild.  But I'm going to be
stuck with it, and there's nothing I can do to stop it.  So for those of you who
DO want it, why is it such a burden to hear that not everyone thinks the way you
do?






"Mike Galbraith" <EFAULT@gmx.de> on 05/18/2002 05:25:11 AM

To:
cc:    (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)

Subject:  Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3



>Someone said here on the list a few months ago that "make bzlilo" was replaced
>by "make install" and that it was necessary to configure the "install" option's
>behavior.

Someone said?  Your opinion on this subject just lost all of it's value.

     -Mike







         reply	other threads:[~2002-05-18 17:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-05-18 10:25 kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3 Mike Galbraith
2002-05-18 17:32 ` Wayne.Brown [this message]
2002-05-18 18:11   ` Tomas Szepe
2002-05-18 21:15   ` DervishD
2002-05-20  4:31   ` Mike Fedyk
2002-05-20  5:09     ` Albert D. Cahalan
2002-05-20  5:18       ` Keith Owens
2002-05-20 14:29       ` Juan Quintela
2002-05-20  5:11     ` Keith Owens
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-05-19 10:26 Mike Galbraith
2002-05-18  6:05 Wayne.Brown
2002-05-18 16:50 ` John Weber
2002-05-18  5:09 Wayne.Brown
2002-05-18  5:23 ` David Lang
2002-05-18 13:11 ` Diego Calleja
2002-05-17 22:59 Wayne.Brown
2002-05-17 23:14 ` Robert Love
2002-05-18  4:01 ` Horst von Brand
2002-05-18 12:57 ` Diego Calleja
2002-05-17 20:53 Wayne.Brown
2002-05-17 21:14 ` Andrew Morton
2002-05-17 21:42   ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-17 22:16     ` Kai Germaschewski
2002-05-17 22:34       ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-05-17 22:40         ` Larry McVoy
2002-05-18  0:41       ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-05-17 22:09 ` Nicolas Pitre
2002-05-18  0:38 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-05-17 19:51 Wayne.Brown
2002-05-17 20:09 ` Dave Jones
2002-05-17 20:25   ` Diego Calleja
2002-05-18 13:15 ` Paul P Komkoff Jr
2002-05-17 14:56 James Bottomley
2002-05-17 14:21 Wayne.Brown
2002-05-17 17:37 ` Adam Kropelin
2002-05-17 18:00   ` Robert Love
2002-05-16 22:42 Keith Owens
2002-05-17  0:10 ` Nicolas Pitre
2002-05-17  3:30   ` Tomas Szepe
2002-05-17  7:55     ` Russell King
2002-05-17  8:42     ` Miles Lane
2002-05-17 13:11       ` Dave Jones
2002-05-17 13:09     ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-17  8:17       ` Tomas Szepe
2002-05-17 13:39         ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-17  1:50 ` jeff millar
2002-05-17  2:04   ` Keith Owens
2002-05-17  2:26   ` Dave Jones
2002-05-17  7:11 ` Kenneth Johansson
2002-05-17 15:13   ` Nicolas Pitre
2002-05-17 15:19     ` Tomas Szepe
2002-05-17 15:42       ` Nicolas Pitre
2002-05-18  1:39         ` Keith Owens
2002-05-18  2:11           ` Nicolas Pitre
2002-05-18  2:19             ` Keith Owens
2002-05-17 18:19 ` Diego Calleja
2002-05-19 15:46 ` Pavel Machek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=86256BBD.00606F38.00@smtpnotes.altec.com \
    --to=wayne.brown@altec.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox