Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 May 2002 22:09:22 +0200 | From | Dave Jones <> | Subject | Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3 |
| |
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 02:51:57PM -0500, Wayne.Brown@altec.com wrote: > Personally, I wish that the only changes anybody made were to the kernel itself > (new drivers added, existing performance improved, etc.) and that all the > supporting tools and utilities just could be left alone. I know that's not > going to happen, but anything that slows down changes in those extraneous things > is fine with me. I'd be perfectly happy if *years* from now I was compiling > Linux 45.10.12 with the same kbuild, CML, gcc and everything else that I'm using > right now.
Compare and contrast..
-rw-r--r-- 1 davej users 31426560 Jan 9 2001 linux-2.0.39.tar -rw-r--r-- 1 davej users 85442560 Nov 6 2001 linux-2.2.20.tar -rw-r--r-- 1 davej users 131727360 Feb 25 20:15 linux-2.4.18.tar -rw-r--r-- 1 davej users 152524800 May 10 00:11 linux-2.5.15.tar
Spot the pattern? Exponential growth. not only that, but for the most part, the build system is the same across all of these. If we continue growing at the current rate without doing something about the build process, we're all going to be needing 8-way Opterons with several GB of memory to get any work done.
If kbuild2.5 is faster, and produces the same end result (or better still, more accurate builds), there's no valid reason to ignore it that I can see.
Dave. -- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs - 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/
| |