[Kai Germaschewski]
> However, I don't think it's hard to verify that my patch works as
> well, it's about ten lines added to Rules.make. It's particularly
> easy to verify that it doesn't change behavior for objects listed in
> $(list-multi) at all.
Yes, we can say this, but people are right t
On Tue, 1 May 2001, J . A . Magallon wrote:
> On 05.01 Keith Owens wrote:
> >
> > The patch appears to work but is it worth applying now? The existing
> > 2.4 rules work fine and the entire kbuild system will be rewritten for
> > 2.5, including the case you identified here. It struck me as a de
On Tue, 1 May 2001 01:31:20 +0200,
"J . A . Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 05.01 Keith Owens wrote:
>> The patch appears to work but is it worth applying now? The existing
>> 2.4 rules work fine and the entire kbuild system will be rewritten for
>> 2.5
>
>We will have to live with 2.4
On 05.01 Keith Owens wrote:
>
> The patch appears to work but is it worth applying now? The existing
> 2.4 rules work fine and the entire kbuild system will be rewritten for
> 2.5, including the case you identified here. It struck me as a decent
> change but for no benefit and, given that the
On Tue, 1 May 2001 00:43:42 +0200 (CEST),
Kai Germaschewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I sent this to the kbuild list about a week ago, and I received exactly
>zero replies, so I'm posting to l-k now. This may mean that the idea is
>totally stupid (but I'd like to know) or unquestionably good (t
5 matches
Mail list logo
