|To:||Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: xfs: Makefile-linux-2.6 => Makefile?|
|From:||Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Mon, 09 Jan 2006 15:23:39 -0600|
|Cc:||Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx|
|References:||<20060109164214.GA10367@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060109164611.GA1382@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <43C2CFBD.8040901@xxxxxxx> <20060109212005.GC14477@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050720)|
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 03:03:57PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:Out of curiosity, what's the reason to drop VERSION & PATCHLEVEL... seems handy if you have a common body of code that needs to build for various kernels, with various Makefiles to suit. As above. :)The kernel is supposed to hold the code for the kernel - not a lot of backward compatibiliy cruft.
Understood, and it makes sense to yank that compat cruft from kernel.org codebases.But it seems useful for projects outside the kernel which would like to know which kernel they are building against, as far as the build system goes. I've seen a few drivers out there that try to keep building for both 2.4 & 2.6.
I guess for 2.4 & 2.6, the same can be accomplished by using Makefile and Kbuild for 2.4 and 2.6....
Maybe you can export it only if KBUILD_EXTMOD is set :) Thanks, -Eric
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: xfs: Makefile-linux-2.6 => Makefile?, Sam Ravnborg|
|Next by Date:||Re: xfs: Makefile-linux-2.6 => Makefile?, Sam Ravnborg|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: xfs: Makefile-linux-2.6 => Makefile?, Sam Ravnborg|
|Next by Thread:||Re: xfs: Makefile-linux-2.6 => Makefile?, Sam Ravnborg|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|