I didn't mean to make a holy war about this. All I asked was that when Linus
tars up the source tree, tar up the "linux-x.x.xx" directory rather than the
symlink itself. I make a new symlink every time I compile a new kernel, that's
not a problem, however I'd just like to not nuke my last kernel sources before
I compile a new kernel. Actually, just the other night I got 2.0.33 and
forgot to nuke the linux symlink, and untarred some files over 2.0.29. So,
this bit me in the butt. AFAICT there is no reason why linux needs to be
named "linux" in the tar file, it also makes archive management (automated
parallel untarring, etc) difficult. Final note, it just *seems* logical to
name the tar file after the directory your're tarring, everyone else does,
and I do too, why do it differently in Linux???
</$0.02>
--Perry
>
> "I come to bury Caeser, not to praise him..."
> My response was simply to indicate that the _current_ symlink
> setup would make complying with Perry's request difficult. Your
> concerns and suggestions may make some real sense, and if they're
> important enough to you, I would suggest you forward them to the
> linux-kernel mailing list.
> Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the subtleties of the
> make process to comment on whether the above could be accomodated. If you
> want to bounce this off of one person who _does_ have that background, I
> would suggest Michael Chastain (included in the CC: line, above) as
> someone who could offer intelligent feedback.
> Thanks for including me in the discussion.
> Cheers,
> - Bill
>
-- Perry Harrington Linux rules all OSes. APSoft () email: perry@apsoft.com Think Blue. /\ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu