lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Did someone try to boot 2.4.16 on a 386 ? [SOLVED]
Date
On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 10:11:40 +0100 (CET), 
=?iso-8859-1?q?willy=20tarreau?= <wtarreau@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>Keith Owens wrote
>Anyway, I think that any tool, script or Makefile
>that modifies the source tree and which results in
>a diff between the two trees after a "make distclean"
>is at risk because it can induce diffs between some
>files that can't always apply to another clean tree.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE!!!!! (Is that too many exclamation marks?)

But try telling people that shipping files then overwriting them is a
bad idea.

>> BTW, cp -al of a pristine source tree to multiple
>> source trees followed by multiple compiles in
>> parallel is not safe either.
>
>Never needed to do that yet.

The moment you use cp -al on a kernel source tree, you are running the
risk of time stamp problems.

cp -al pristine tree1
cp -al pristine tree2
cd tree1
make *config bzImage
cd tree2
make *config bzImage

The make in tree1 and tree2 touches the time stamps on included files.
Because most include files are hard linked, it changes the time stamps
on all three trees, including the pristine source. Even if you never
compile in tree1 and tree2 at the same time, when you switch back and
forth between trees you will get semi-random time stamp changes.

Normally the unwanted time stamp updates only forces spurious
recompiles, but I believe that there are some sequences that create an
incomplete kernel build.

-
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 13:13    [W:0.044 / U:1.588 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site