From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 3 May 2002 05:01:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 3 May 2002 05:01:22 -0400 Received: from zok.SGI.COM ([204.94.215.101]:2770 "EHLO zok.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 3 May 2002 05:01:22 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 From: Keith Owens To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 03 May 2002 00:54:27 +0200." <20020502225426.GB22246@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 19:00:15 +1000 Message-ID: <9853.1020416415@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 3 May 2002 00:54:27 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: >kaos wrote >> Linus, kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the main 2.5 kernel tree. >> It is faster, better documented, easier to write build rules in, has >> better install facilities, allows separate source and object trees, can >> do concurrent builds from the same source tree and is significantly >> more accurate than the existing kernel build system. > >Significantly more accurate, or actually *acurate* as in "never >forgets to rebuild anything"? > Pavel >PS: Okay, modulo bugs... Never forgets to rebuild anything, modulo bugs. I would like to claim 100% build accuracy but ... "All code has at least one bug". If you make a change and the kernel does not rebuild correctly, that is a severity 1 bug in kbuild 2.5 and I will fix it.