On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 08:58:03AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
A summary of what is planned to be submitted in next merge
window for kbuild. The shortlog below have additional details
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 08:58:03AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
A summary of what is planned to be submitted in next merge window for
kbuild.
The shortlog below have additional details
--
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
;
--
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 11:35:21AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
rather than post to the LKML, is this the right forum to ask about
implementing an actual maturity directive in the build
infrastructure? thanks.
Hi rday
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
kbuild: improving option checking
...
--- linux~2.6.20-rc5/scripts/Kbuild.include~blackhole-4-tmpfiles
2007-01-12 19:54:26.0 +0100
+++ linux~2.6.20-rc5/scripts/Kbuild.include 2007-01-24 09:19:01.386426000
+0100
@@ -2,5 +2,5 @@
#
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 05:37:00AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
kbuild: improving option checking
...
--- linux~2.6.20-rc5/scripts/Kbuild.include~blackhole-4-tmpfiles
2007-01-12 19:54:26.0
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 01:46:27PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
p.s. i didn't look closely enough to see if your patch took out
support for both depends *and* requires. at this point,
neither of those are necessary anymore -- it's all depends
i'm playing with the latest git pull of the kernel, and i'm a bit
confused about how some of the choices are selected when doing make
menuconfig. (it may be that i just misunderstand some of the content
of kconfig-language.txt, so feel free to point out how i'm clueless
here.)
as a lead-in,
i note that the current incarnation of kbuild is amazingly forgiving
in terms of defining dependencies -- any one of depends on or
depends or requires is acceptable based on
scripts/kconfig/zconf.y:
...
depends: T_DEPENDS T_ON expr T_EOL
{
menu_add_dep($3);
printd(DEBUG_PARSE,
i notice that it's legal (but a warning) to redefine the prompt
attribute for a config entry. what's the rationale behind allowing a
redefinition? just curious.
rday
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Bodo Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
IMHO, Kconfig files are quite readable due to this indentation even
though only a minority of the entries was using ---help--- even
before this patch.
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004, Roman Zippel wrote:
Hi,
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
is there a proper way to place that calculated value representing
yes, something non-null was selected inside the choice construct without
getting a kbuild warning? really, that's where it belongs.
Why do you want to put
13 matches
Mail list logo
