From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:59:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:59:34 -0500 Received: from pasmtp.tele.dk ([193.162.159.95]:13831 "EHLO pasmtp.tele.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:59:33 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:09:35 +0100 From: Sam Ravnborg To: Greg KH Cc: torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] klibc for 2.5.62 Message-ID: <20030219200935.GB1623@mars.ravnborg.org> Mail-Followup-To: Greg KH , torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20030219193907.GA17248@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030219193907.GA17248@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 11:39:07AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > Hi, > > Finally, here's the klibc addition against the latest 2.5.62 bk kernel > tree. A few comments that I had queued. > usr/lib/arch/arm/MCONFIG | 26 Any good reasons for such a screaming name? makefile.config eventually. > usr/lib/arch/arm/Makefile.inc | 31 No extension is used for arch/arm/Makefile Why does klibc differ in this respect? [An answer that tell me that arch/arm/Makefile should change is fine with me..] > usr/lib/makeerrlist.pl | 80 > usr/lib/socketcalls.pl | 75 This mixture of code and scripts to generate code hursts my eye. What about usr/scripts/. I assume you do not want them in scripts/ Sam