>
> Are you building in a different tree than the source tree? The patch below
> fixed it for me.
>
> Question: Why don't GENKSYMS and KALLSYMS need the $(srctree) prefix?
They are generated binaries that live in the output directory structure.
> ---
> Subject: kbuild: Add missing srctree prefi
On 11/5/07, Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Are you building in a different tree than the source tree? The patch below
> fixed it for me.
>
Yes, I am. Thanks for the patch.
Marco
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message t
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Marco Costalba wrote:
> make includecheck does not work for me. Linux tree is from latest git.
>
> bash-3.2$ pwd
> /git/linux-2.6
>
> bash-3.2$ make includecheck
> find * \( -name SCCS -o -name BitKeeper -o -name .svn -o -name CVS -o
> -name .pc -o -name .hg -o -name .git \) -
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> given the recent patches to remove duplicated #include preprocessor
> directives in source files, let it be known that there are a number of
> them:
>
> http://www.crashcourse.ca/wiki/index.php/Duplicate_include_files
>
> help yourself.
Thanks!
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > actually, one wonders if there's any value in keeping any references
> > to other version control systems such as subversion, SCCS, CVS,
> > mercurial, etc.
>
> What do you mean by "other"? git doesn't have a monopoly, a
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 08:03:48PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> BTW: "make includecheck" already does the same...
>
When was that added? It's not listed in the 'make help', and I see
there's a versioncheck too that's not reported. Some of these are
actually useful, I wonder what else is lurking in
On Sun, 2007-11-04 at 14:49 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
[...]
> actually, one wonders if there's any value in keeping any references
> to other version control systems such as subversion, SCCS, CVS,
> mercurial, etc.
Lots of people have their working trees in CVS, Subversion,
So it probabl
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> actually, one wonders if there's any value in keeping any references
> to other version control systems such as subversion, SCCS, CVS,
> mercurial, etc.
>
What do you mean by "other"? git doesn't have a monopoly, and the
kernel should support people using a reasonable
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Marco Costalba wrote:
> On 11/4/07, Marco Costalba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > make includecheck does not work for me. Linux tree is from latest git.
> >
> > bash-3.2$ pwd
> > /git/linux-2.6
> >
> > bash-3.2$ make includecheck
> > find * \( -name SCCS -o -name BitKeeper -o -
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 20:43:01 +0100 Marco Costalba wrote:
> On 11/4/07, Marco Costalba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > make includecheck does not work for me. Linux tree is from latest git.
> >
> > bash-3.2$ pwd
> > /git/linux-2.6
> >
> > bash-3.2$ make includecheck
> > find * \( -name SCCS -o -name
On 11/4/07, Marco Costalba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> make includecheck does not work for me. Linux tree is from latest git.
>
> bash-3.2$ pwd
> /git/linux-2.6
>
> bash-3.2$ make includecheck
> find * \( -name SCCS -o -name BitKeeper -o -name .svn -o -name CVS -o
BTW what's that 'BitKeeper' foss
make includecheck does not work for me. Linux tree is from latest git.
bash-3.2$ pwd
/git/linux-2.6
bash-3.2$ make includecheck
find * \( -name SCCS -o -name BitKeeper -o -name .svn -o -name CVS -o
-name .pc -o -name .hg -o -name .git \) -prune -o \
-name '*.[hcS]' -type f -print
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> BTW: "make includecheck" already does the same...
oh ... well, then, let's just ignore the last few postings, shall we?
:-P
rday
--
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 01:37:31PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:31:38 -0500 (EST) Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > given the recent patches to remove duplicated #include preprocessor
> > > directives in source files,
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 13:37:31 -0500 (EST) Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:31:38 -0500 (EST) Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > given the recent patches to remove duplicated #include preprocessor
> > > directives in source files, l
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:31:38 -0500 (EST) Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> >
> > given the recent patches to remove duplicated #include preprocessor
> > directives in source files, let it be known that there are a number of
> > them:
> >
> > http://www.crashc
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:31:38 -0500 (EST) Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> given the recent patches to remove duplicated #include preprocessor
> directives in source files, let it be known that there are a number of
> them:
>
> http://www.crashcourse.ca/wiki/index.php/Duplicate_include_files
>
> h
17 matches
Mail list logo