lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3


    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






    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.036 / U:0.064 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site