Richard Gooch wrote:
> As Keith says, the new code is faster and more robust than the old
> code. Given that tracking kernel drift is a significant load on him,
> it makes sense to incorporate the new code now. Once it's in, let
> people get used to it and then we can look at optimising it, if need
> be. Delaying introduction into the kernel tree because it's not 100%
> optimised is wasteful.
Keith also says:
> I am temporarily omitting [modversions] which is (a) currently broken
> (b) is not being used in development kernels and (c) cannot be fixed
> without a radical redesign. Modversions is not needed right now and
> will be added later. Everything I have done in kbuild 2.5 is needed
[Caveat: I'm not much of a kernel hacker.]
My only concern with kbuild 2.5 was the lack of modversions,
but since Richard is promising to add them in before the
distros need them, I would have no qualms about kbuild 2.5
totally replacing the old build system for the next 2.5 kernel.
I'm sick and tired of 'make dep'.
What does Alan Cox think?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 07 2002 - 22:00:24 EST