[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Disgusted with kbuild developers
David Woodhouse <>:
> A good way to kill this myth, if myth it is, would be to set up a test
> suite, as I suggested before. You already have a 'randomconfig' for CML2, I
> believe? I think there's also one for CML1.

There is no randomconfig for CML2.

> Repeatedly make a random config (for a random architecture), with either
> CML1 or CML2. Make oldconfig with the other CML, then with the first again.
> If there are any differences between the original randomconfig output and
> the output after the two 'oldconfig' stages, you've hit something that may
> be a problem.
> Every time you hit such a difference, either fix it or document it and
> justify it. Ensure that the list of such justifications required is small,
> in order to improve the chance of CML2 being accepted.

This cycle is what I've been going through with a lot of my beta testers.
<a href="">Eric S. Raymond</a>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.097 / U:0.736 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site