From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 6 May 2002 00:09:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 6 May 2002 00:09:43 -0400 Received: from samba.sourceforge.net ([198.186.203.85]:32180 "HELO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 6 May 2002 00:09:42 -0400 From: Paul Mackerras MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15574.389.424221.379118@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 14:07:33 +1000 (EST) To: Mike Fedyk Cc: Keith Owens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel In-Reply-To: <20020506004204.GJ2392@matchmail.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under Emacs 20.7.2 Reply-To: paulus@samba.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mike Fedyk writes: > On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:03:54PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > I still think that the time to build the global makefile is big enough > > and obvious enough that many people (including myself) will want to > > see it optimized, either by making the process itself more efficient > > or by caching the result and re-using it where possible. > > But it's still faster than kbuild-2.4. > > This shouldn't keep it from going into mainline. Just like anything else, > the itch will be scratched if there's enough irritation, and inclusion of > the new kbuild should at first *reduce* the irritation that's already there > now. Oh, I agree totally. I'm just saying that I think there will be enough irritation. And this is a new irritation, which is for that reason more noticeable than the old irritations which we are used to, even if the old irritations are actually worse. :) Paul.