George Boudreau wrote:
Just playing the devil's advocate but have you run your script against
a 2.6.12 kernel and compared your output to the 'official' 2.6.12 llh
files.
Jim Gifford wrote:
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
BTW, instead of writing to /tmp/new_header file, the script should
probably write to $header.orig. The file in /tmp may exist and may not
be owned by the user running the script.
Will be done in the next version, expect it shortly.
Also since this is starting to become a hot topic, I've created a svn
for the script, so we can track it's progress.
http://svn.jg555.com
Anyone interested in helping can submit patches to me also, I see this
as a CLFS and LFS community project.
There is still a little more to do. unifdef will leave quite a few
empty files...well, empty cept for the 'hey I've already been included'
define at the top. These should be removed and the relevent include
lines removed from the rest of the headers. Also, there will be
includes with 1 or 2 lines of code that fell before the ifdef
__KERNEL__. These lines would be best moved to other dependent files as
is done in the previous llh. None of the above matter from a functional
standpoint, only cleanliness. There were are also consideralbe
differences in the ide.h and related headers that concern me a bit.
IIRC, quite a bit of the files were torn apart, items removed were not
wrapped in an #ifdef...llh change logs and comit logs would be nice to
review for that part I think.
-- DJ Lucas
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
