Hi Roman, sorry if you get this twice. first mail did not show up.
I have been working on integrating lkc with kbuild.
Here is the result.
Rules.make
- Added infrastructure to support host-ccprogs, in other words
support tools written (partly) in c++.
scripts/lkc/Makefile*
- As kbuild does no
Hi,
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> I have been working on integrating lkc with kbuild.
> Here is the result.
Thanks, nice work. :)
> Rules.make
> - Added infrastructure to support host-ccprogs, in other words
> support tools written (partly) in c++.
There are all compiled with g
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > I have been working on integrating lkc with kbuild.
> > Here is the result.
>
> Thanks, nice work. :)
Yup, I improved things a bit further.
> > Rules.make
> > - Added infrastructure to support host-ccprogs, in other words
> > support tools written
One cosmetic thing I mentioned to Roman, Config.new needs to be changed
to something better, like conf.in or build.conf or somesuch.
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> One cosmetic thing I mentioned to Roman, Config.new needs to be changed
> to something better, like conf.in or build.conf or somesuch.
I agree. (But I'm not particularly good at coming up with names ;)
build.conf is maybe not too bad considering that t
Kai Germaschewski wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>
>>One cosmetic thing I mentioned to Roman, Config.new needs to be changed
>>to something better, like conf.in or build.conf or somesuch.
>
>
> I agree. (But I'm not particularly good at coming up with names ;)
> build.con
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Kai Germaschewski wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> >
> >>One cosmetic thing I mentioned to Roman, Config.new needs to be changed
> >>to something better, like conf.in or build.conf or somesuch.
> >
> >
> > I agree. (But I'm no
Hi,
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Kai Germaschewski wrote:
> > One cosmetic thing I mentioned to Roman, Config.new needs to be changed
> > to something better, like conf.in or build.conf or somesuch.
>
> I agree. (But I'm not particularly good at coming up with names ;)
> build.conf is maybe not too bad
Hi,
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Kai Germaschewski wrote:
> I'm still not happy at least for the ".config does not exist" case. Since
> when I forget to "cp ../config-2.5 .config", I don't really want "make
> oldconfig", I want to do the forgotten cp.
Adding this check to the silent mode is trivial.
b
Kai Germaschewski wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> AFAICS, "quiet" only means the same thing as the traditional "make
> oldconfig", but suppressing questions where the answers are known. (Which
> I think is fine)
yeah, that's fine with me too
> I was just referring to the fo
Kai Germaschewski wrote:
> I'm still not happy at least for the ".config does not exist" case. Since
Easy, maintain the 2.4 behavior, which is sane :)
Jeff
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
h
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 05:36:25PM -0500, Kai Germaschewski wrote:
> > > scripts/lkc/Makefile*
> > > - As kbuild does not distingush between individual objects,
> > > used for a given target, but (try to) build them all, I have
> > > found a solution where I create one Makefile for each execut
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > I intentionally only printed a message and errored out in this case, and I
> > think that's more useful, particularly for people doing
> >
> > make all 2>&1 > make.log
> >
> > which now may take forever waiting for input.
>
> You should have tried thi
Hi,
(I almost forgot to reply to this one, sorry for the delay.)
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Kai Germaschewski wrote:
> I'm not particularly fond of these md5sum hacks. I don't think it's all
> that annoying for the developer, either, it's basically just a
> alias make="make LKC_GENPARSER=1"
>
> (Of c
14 matches
Mail list logo
