From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@suse.de>, Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: Drivers.conf and kbuild-2.5 [Was: kbuild 2.5 is ready ...]
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 12:45:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020519124510.A9033@mars.ravnborg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205172157540.4117-100000@xanadu.home> <15163.1021688371@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> <20020519001434.A4153@mars.ravnborg.org> <20020519003546.D15417@suse.de>
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 12:35:46AM +0200, Dave Jones wrote:
> > Does it make sense to introduce limited support for the drivers.conf idea
> > in kbuild-2.5 already now?
>
> kbuild-2.5 is big enough to already be a problem to be accepted
> 'all in one go'. Adding driver.conf support will just make this problem
> bigger. What Keith has already needs to somehow be done gradually.
>
> How this happens isn't exactly obvious to me however. Due to the way
> things like dependancy calculation have changed, you can't for example
> do the merging on a per-directory basis and say "drivers this time",
> "now the filesystems" etc..
Thats why I tried to identify areas that could be merged even before
kbuild-2.5 got merged.
o "make dep" changes in for example split-include
o install target in config.in for i386
o asm-offset functionality for i386
o kwhich
I see no way to split the core part in smaller parts. It does not make sense
to merge only half of this for example.
The rest of the patch is a huge amount of makefile.in files, and some other
related files.
The patch as such could be splitted in several different ways, but again
it would not make sense to merge that gradually over time.
> Don't confuse the build system with the configuration system.
> Whilst they are somewhat intertwined, they are not dependant on each other.
I do not mix up the purpose of the two systems, but suggesting the
drivers.conf concept makes both systems rely on information in the same file.
Therefore I suggested a two step approach:
1) Let kbuild understand and accept the drivers.conf concept gradually
2) Let the configuration system accept the Drivers.conf concept gradually
With gradually I expect it to be on a directory basis.
> > IMHO it would also be plain stupid to put a lot of effort in
> > supporting the old makefile syntax, when the files are already converted.
>
> That effort has already been done. kbuild2.5 can live alongside the
> existing build system.
What exists now is two parrallel systems. This has the negative effect that
it fails to show how much old cruft can be removed from the kernel upon
acceptance of kbuild-2.5. As it is now kbuild-2.5 either modify some
existing files or add some new files.
It would be nice to see how much could be cleaned up from the kernel
upon acceptance of kbuild-2.5.
The makefiles that can be removed alone counts ~2700 lines.
Sam
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-19 10:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-16 22:42 kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3 Keith Owens
2002-05-17 0:10 ` Nicolas Pitre
2002-05-17 3:30 ` Tomas Szepe
2002-05-17 7:55 ` Russell King
2002-05-17 8:42 ` Miles Lane
2002-05-17 13:11 ` Dave Jones
2002-05-17 13:09 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-17 8:17 ` Tomas Szepe
2002-05-17 13:39 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-17 1:50 ` jeff millar
2002-05-17 2:04 ` Keith Owens
2002-05-17 2:26 ` Dave Jones
2002-05-17 7:11 ` Kenneth Johansson
2002-05-17 15:13 ` Nicolas Pitre
2002-05-17 15:19 ` Tomas Szepe
2002-05-17 15:42 ` Nicolas Pitre
2002-05-18 1:39 ` Keith Owens
2002-05-18 2:11 ` Nicolas Pitre
2002-05-18 2:19 ` Keith Owens
2002-05-18 22:14 ` Drivers.conf and kbuild-2.5 [Was: kbuild 2.5 is ready ...] Sam Ravnborg
2002-05-18 22:35 ` Dave Jones
2002-05-19 10:45 ` Sam Ravnborg [this message]
2002-05-17 18:19 ` kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3 Diego Calleja
2002-05-19 15:46 ` Pavel Machek
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=20020519124510.A9033@mars.ravnborg.org \
--to=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=davej@suse.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®