Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 02:42:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 02:41:52 -0500 Received: from panic.ohr.gatech.edu ([130.207.47.194]:53186 "HELO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 29 Dec 2001 02:41:44 -0500 Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 02:41:43 -0500 From: Legacy Fishtank To: Keith Owens Cc: Mike Castle , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: State of the new config & build system Message-ID: <20011229024143.A11696@havoc.gtf.org> In-Reply-To: <20011229042139.GC14067@thune.mrc-home.com> <9467.1009601050@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <9467.1009601050@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au>; from kaos@ocs.com.au on Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 03:44:10PM +1100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 03:44:10PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote: > What Mr. Fishtank seems to overlook is that kbuild 2.5 is far more > flexible and accurate than 2.4, including features that lots of people > want, like separate source and object trees. I don't see the masses, or, well, anybody on lkml, clamoring for this. IIRC from the kernel summit SGI was the only entity clamoring for this. > Now that the overall > kbuild design is correct, the core code can be rewritten for speed. > And that will be done a couple of weeks after kbuild 2.5 goes into the > kernel, then I expect kbuild 2.5 to be faster than kbuild 2.4 even on > full builds. Ok... you want kbuild into 2.5 ASAP, only to submit a rewrite two weeks later? If so it makes even less sense to get kbuild into 2.5.x now. Jeff - 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/