From: Peter Samuelson <peter@cadcamlab.org>
To: Kai Germaschewski <kai@tp1.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Cc: "J . A . Magallon" <jamagallon@able.es>,
Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [kbuild-devel] [PATCH] automatic multi-part link rules (fwd)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 12:23:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010501122316.A23391@cadcamlab.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010501013120.A15120@werewolf.able.es> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105010944370.24511-100000@vaio>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0105010944370.24511-100000@vaio>; from kai@tp1.ruhr-uni-bochum.de on Tue, May 01, 2001 at 10:16:44AM +0200
[Kai Germaschewski]
> However, I don't think it's hard to verify that my patch works as
> well, it's about ten lines added to Rules.make. It's particularly
> easy to verify that it doesn't change behavior for objects listed in
> $(list-multi) at all.
Yes, we can say this, but people are right to be paranoid. Remember
that the first version of your patch (several months ago) required a
particular version of GNU Make....
I submitted a cleanup patch for 2.2.18pre that was 100% safe in that it
just made use of a script that was already in the tree
(scripts/kwhich). But sure enough, it broke for users of older Red Hat
installations who were still on bash 1.x. It seems scripts/kwhich
hadn't been used that way before, so nobody had noticed that it didn't
work with bash 1.
That said, I think your current version is in fact bug-free and if it
were up to me I would put it in the tree. But I also understand why
others are hesitant to trust it. The bugs it fixes are fairly minor,
after all.
Peter
prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-05-01 17:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-04-30 22:43 Kai Germaschewski
2001-04-30 22:49 ` [kbuild-devel] " Keith Owens
2001-04-30 23:31 ` J . A . Magallon
2001-04-30 23:46 ` Keith Owens
2001-05-01 8:16 ` Kai Germaschewski
2001-05-01 17:23 ` Peter Samuelson [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010501122316.A23391@cadcamlab.org \
--to=peter@cadcamlab.org \
--cc=jamagallon@able.es \
--cc=kai@tp1.ruhr-uni-bochum.de \
--cc=kaos@ocs.com.au \
--cc=kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®