Re: [bk patch] Make cardbus compile in -pre4

[Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 03:52:58PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 04:36:03PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > On Feb 09, 2002  13:41 -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > We don't, but we can, and we should.  "bk relink tree1 tree2" seems like 
> > > the right interface.
> > 
> > Yes, this would be great.  It should probably only do this for files in
> > SCCS and BitKeeper directories, because vim (for example) will do the
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > One thing that I've noticed (got my first linux-2.5 clone last night) is
> > that the kernel build process is somewhat broken by the fact that not
> > everything that you need to build is checked out of the repository by
> > make.
> > 
> > It appears to handle .c files ok, but it failed for all of the .h files.
> 
> This is because the dependencies are incorrect in the makefiles.  If you
> have correct dependencies in the makefiles, make will do the right thing.

Or more specifically, the 'dependancy' stage of the kernel knows
_nothing_ about SCCS.  It _might_ not be that hard to hack up the
scripts/mkdep.c program to check if an #include'd file exists (and if it
doesn't, if (any search patch)/SCCS exists, and if so, get it.

> One alternative would be to have a scripts/bk-get which takes as an arg
> the architecture[s] you want and gets the files that make sense for
> that architecture.  That would help somewhat.

If it's just a flat list of files, it'd be rather hellish to maintain
I'd think.  It _might_ not be too horrible to try and glean files from
CONFIG options (but isn't part of the point of the kernel's current dep
system to not depend on CONFIG_xxx options?) and assume all of include/
is needed.

Or kbuild-2.5 might just work since it does deps in a more 'correct'
manner.

-- 
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/