Hello
I have some comment/explications about the thread
about kbuild.
1-
The discussion was also on lkml, ESR asked to kbuild
people to give some comments, using also the feed-back
of lkml.
As you noticed, in lkml the discussion went into flames,
fogetting the important points.
[As this flame is going forgetting kbuild-2.5..]]
2-
The comments in kbuild list are accessible to all.
You should read them (hmm, really there are only one full
comment [my comment] + discution/flame]
3-
The importants points are:
CML2 and kbuild-2.5 are two different projects, which
don't depend each other.
The need of the two project is also demostrated by the
other never finished similar project (mconfig, kernconfig,
mcml2, cml2config, dancing-makefiles, ...)
4-
Nobody talked about kbuild-2.5. It really correct actual
makefiles. And I hope that Linus correct this bahaviour in
a time manner (and not as last big makefile correction in
2.4.0-testX).
5-
What wrong with kbuild-2.5?
Keith seems to comunicate better with other kernel developers,
[The main point of kbuild-2.5 are:
no more required make mrproper -> faster,
no more 'touch include/*/*.h',
multiple trees, read-oly sources,...]
6-
Old configuration programs, IMHO, are not so broken, but there
is a big problem of maintainability. Every 10 patches, few are
incorrect.
Few developers (maybe no developers) will use xconfig, and
also few developers have read the Documentation/kbuild/.
This inevitably port people to write Config.in as bash
shell (WRONG!), forgetting that unset configuration have
variable unset OR set to 'n'.
These problems seems not so huge, but with actual kernel
development there are. It is difficult to push corection patch
into the main kernel. Who will help kbuild people?
[CML2 will solve the problem at the source: same engine for
all interface, with more checks, so original sender will have
the correct config.in].
7-
Andrea'WAlan did you make some tools for CML1 and did you not
publish? Why? (not published == not existance from the other
people).
8-
Read who wrote menuconfig, and you see why ESR want to
replace it.
9-
Read some user list about configuration problem and you see
that CML1 cause user much problem that a kernel hacker see.
(menuconfig didn't compile, where is such symbols?)
No flame please.
Tell us what is wrong in kbuild-2-5 and in CML2. Don't flame!
If you flame about CML2, ESR will answer you and then he
forget the initial proposal of improvement.
giacomo, who don't understan why kbuild-2.5 is not in kernel
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" wrote:
> The discussion was also on lkml, ESR asked to kbuild
> people to give some comments, using also the feed-back
> of lkml.
> As you noticed, in lkml the discussion went into flames,
> fogetting the important points.
> [As this flame is going forgetting kbuild-2.5..]]
No need for a huge long e-mail to make a basic point:
Don't lump CML2 and Keith's kbuild work together.
I agree, and this is a good point.
> Tell us what is wrong in kbuild-2-5 and in CML2. Don't flame!
We've been doing that for CML2. For months, actually.
kbuild (again, as you point out) is quite another matter. Perhaps we
can point Keith to post a test patch against 2.5.5-pre1, for us to
review and comment on?
I believe there are probably still some issues to resolve, but I would
love to see a better makefile system for 2.5.
Regards,
Jeff
--
Jeff Garzik | "Why is it that attractive girls like you
Building 1024 | always seem to have a boyfriend?"
MandrakeSoft | "Because I'm a nympho that owns a brewery?"
| - BBC TV show "Coupling"
[email protected] said:
> I have some comment/explications about the thread about kbuild.
The thread isn't about kbuild. It's about <omitted>. Please do not confuse
the two or even mention them in the same mail. It only serves to promote the
confusion.
kbuild is far more obviously the right thing to do. The main objection to it
last time I saw a discussion was that it has a performance problem in
certain cases -- which I believe Keith is working on.
It's not clear to me that you asking for it to be reconsidered before that's
complete is useful.
--
dwmw2
David Woodhouse wrote:
> [email protected] said:
>
>> I have some comment/explications about the thread about kbuild.
>>
>
> The thread isn't about kbuild. It's about <omitted>. Please do not confuse
> the two or even mention them in the same mail. It only serves to promote the
> confusion.
>
> kbuild is far more obviously the right thing to do. The main objection to it
> last time I saw a discussion was that it has a performance problem in
> certain cases -- which I believe Keith is working on.
You will confise users...
Notation:
kbuild = kernel build utilities, now = 'kbuild-2.4' + 'CML1' +
Configure.help.
Thus kbuild is not only Makefiles.
Historically (and I think still in MAINTAINERS file), the
kbuild mailing list is for configurations. There was no
real maintainer of Makefiles.
giacomo
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 10:00:00AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Read who wrote menuconfig, and you see why ESR want to
> replace it.
I would hope he's not so petty. I believe mec once said something along
the lines of "his patches were the most stable part of the build process"...
john
--
"I'd rather be rudely informed than politely left in the dark."