Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] kbuild updates | From | Martin Schlemmer <> | Date | Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:25:18 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2004-06-21 at 00:18, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 12:03:19AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > If I get just one good example I will go for the object directory, but > > what I have seen so far is whining - no examples. > > Now I recall why I did not like the object directory. > I will break all modules using the kbuild infrastructure! >
Below do not really explain this - care to be more detailed?
> Why, because there is no way the to find the output directory except > specifying both directories. > One could do: > make -C /lib/modules/`uname -r`/source O=/lib/modules/`uname -r`/build M=`pwd` >
Huh? Explain to me how else you would do builds that have separate output directory? And what is the difference from above to:
make -C /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build O=/lib/modules/`uname -r`/object M=`pwd`
except that you will _not_ cause existing stuff to break?
> So the currect choice is: > 1) Break modules that actually dive into the src, grepping, including or whatever > 2) Break all modules using kbuild infrastructure, including the above ones > > I go for 1), introducing minimal breakage. > > And please keep in mind. The breakage wil _only_ be visible when kernels are > shipped with separate output directory.
How is that? In both cases the 'build' symlink do not point to the source anymore.
> If kernels are shipped with no output files at all then one can just > compile the kernel. Seems to be the Fedora way. No breakage happens. > > If kernels are shipped with mixed source and output then no breakage happens. > > If kernels are shipped with separate source and output then we better break > as few modules as possible. And the introduced change actually minimize breakage. > > So the patch will not change. > > Sam -- Martin Schlemmer [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |