On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 13:28:24 +0100,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@caldera.de> wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 10:48:36AM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
>> Only if the new version cleans up the horrible drm 4.0 Makefile.
>
>I am more than happy to do so. In fact I already did in 2.4.0-test times
>and got flamed by the drm crew..
Don't see why. drm 4.1 uses a sane makefile, apart from a few dead
references to $(lib) which do nothing. The separate copy of drmlib in
each object was meant to allow migration to a new format, it obviously
failed in its task, drm 4.1 is not compatible. From drm 4.0 Makefile
# The upside is that if the DRM support library ever becomes insufficient
# for new families of cards, a new library can be implemented for those new
# cards without impacting the drivers for the old cards. This is significant,
# because testing architectural changes to old cards may be impossible, and
# may delay the implementation of a better architecture. We've traded slight
# memory waste (in the dual-head case) for greatly improved long-term
# maintainability.
Nice definition of long term, it survived 0 new releases. Kill it.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 23 2001 - 21:00:29 EST