login
Search
Keith Owens recently announced for the third time that kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion into the Linux 2.5 development kernel tree [earlier story]. Keith says, "Third and final attempt. Original sent on May 2, second mail sent on May 14, still no response from Linus." He goes on to explain, "I would like kbuild 2.5 to go in in the near future. Keeping up to date with kernel changes is a significant effort, Makefiles change all the time, especially when major subsystems like sound and usb are reorganised."
Many have offered support of the new build system. In the most recent thread, Robert Love said, "Fwiw, I like kbuild-2.5 and want it in." Dave Jones summarized his own support saying, "If kbuild2.5 is faster, and produces the same end result (or better still, more accurate builds), there's no valid reason to ignore it that I can see."
However, so far its seems that Linus has chosen to ignore Keith's emails. Perhaps there's something behind the scenes prompting this silence. Or perhaps it's just a matter of time.
From: Keith Owens
Subject: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 08:42:18 +1000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Third and final attempt. Original sent on May 2, second mail sent on
May 14, still no response from Linus.
Linus, kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the main 2.5 kernel tree.
It is faster, better documented, easier to write build rules in, has
better install facilities, allows separate source and object trees, can
do concurrent builds from the same source tree and is significantly
more accurate than the existing kernel build system.
The current state is
kbuild-2.5-core-14 Fits any 2.4 and 2.5 kernel.
kbuild-2.5-common-2.5.15-4 2.5.15 arch independent files.
There are several arch dependent files for 2.5.15 or earlier kernels.
kbuild-2.5-i386-2.5.15-2
kbuild-2.5-sparc64-2.5.15-1
kbuild-2.5-s390-2.5.15-1
kbuild-2.5-s390x-2.5.15-1
kbuild-2.5-ppc-2.5.14-1
kbuild-2.5-sh-2.5.12-1 (also fits 2.5.13)
kbuild-2.5-ia64-2.5.10-020426-1 (last Mosberger patch)
That covers most of the architectures that currently build on 2.5.
This version has only been tested on CML1. kbuild 2.5 has support for
an older version of CML2 but it has not been tested on newer versions
of CML2.
Before I send you the kbuild 2.5 patch, how do you want to handle it?
* Coexist with the existing kernel build for one or two releases or
delete the old build system when kbuild 2.5 goes in?
Coexistence for a few days gives a backout, just in case. It also
gives a kernel release where the old and new code can be compared,
useful for architectures that have not been converted yet.
Deleting the old system at the same time means that unconverted
architectures cannot build. OTOH many architectures are already
broken in the 2.5 kernel.
* I need a quiet period of 24-48 hours (no changes at all) after a new
kernel release to bring kbuild 2.5 up to the latest release, before
sending you the complete patch. Which kernel release do you want
kbuild 2.5 against?
I would like kbuild 2.5 to go in in the near future. Keeping up to
date with kernel changes is a significant effort, Makefiles change all
the time, especially when major subsystems like sound and usb are
reorganised. There are also some changes to architecture code to do it
right under kbuild 2.5 and tracking those against kernel changes can be
painful.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999
iD8DBQE85DXKi4UHNye0ZOoRAsRyAJwP52HqsmJhZKNIiJKQUScLjD/cOgCffzTc
Uj1qHkvIszUfOYQtInekCYY=
=sxcO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Jeff Millar
Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 21:50:46 -0400
Keith...
will any of the other kernels (dj, ml, ???) incorporate your system?
I'm about ready to try something else.
jeff
From: Dave Jones
Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 04:26:02 +0200
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 09:50:46PM -0400, jeff millar wrote:
> will any of the other kernels (dj, ml, ???) incorporate your system?
> I'm about ready to try something else.
I've thought it over a few times over the last few weeks, and tbh
inclusion in any tree other than Linus' doesn't really make much sense
other than perhaps to get some more 'early adopter' testers.
The current kbuild2.5 patches will apply cleanly against my tree, but
due to things like the new input layer still not being completely merged
in Linus' tree, some files are in different places, so the Makefile.in's
in kbuild2.5 point to the wrong places.
Sure, I could merge it, but tbh it's not worth the effort right now
of fixing up those files until Linus actually says yay or nay.
Dave.
From: Keith Owens
Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:04:27 +1000
On Thu, 16 May 2002 21:50:46 -0400, jeff millar wrote:
>will any of the other kernels (dj, ml, ???) incorporate your system?
Once Linus takes the patch, everybody else will follow.
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 09:21:12AM -0500, Wayne Brown wrote:
> OTOH, those of us who are not looking forward to kbuild 2.5 are
> grateful for any delays we can get.
...and what would your beefs (beeves?) with kbuild-2.5 be? I searched the archives
for the last 12 months and I don't see anythinng from you relevant to kbuild-2.5.
Keith has been addressing concerns quite regularly; I should think if you have
constructive comments, he'd surely listen.
You *do* have constructive comments, right?
--Adam
From: Robert Love
Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3
Date: 17 May 2002 11:00:09 -0700
I have not seen much complaints over kbuild-2.5, and what I have seen
(i.e. it was slower) Keith has done a very good job of addressing (i.e.
now it is faster). Whatever items come up in the future, I suspect
Keith is committed to fixing. Right now, however, it is certainly hard
for him to maintain kbuild-2.5 against a moving kernel tree and work on
new features. Keith knows I will stop sending him Christmas cards if
kbuild-2.5 was merged and he did not follow up on issues - I suspect
that will not happen. :)
Fwiw, I like kbuild-2.5 and want it in.
> You *do* have constructive comments, right?
Probably not. Like most of the noise on lkml these days, non-developers
seem to have an opinion on everything yet offer little value. Code
talks and ...
Robert Love
From: Wayne.Brown
Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:51:57 -0500
Constructive comments would be appropriate if I wanted to help construct a new
kbuild. The truth is that I'm quite happy with the current kbuild and don't
want it replaced with *anything* at all. (That's the same reason I'm glad no
one's been talking about CML2 lately.) The new one wouldn't bother me if the
user interface were *exactly* identical to the old one; i.e., if I could keep
typing exactly the same commands to build a kernel and get exactly the same
results and not be able to tell that anything had changed in the build process.
Personally, I wish that the only changes anybody made were to the kernel itself
(new drivers added, existing performance improved, etc.) and that all the
supporting tools and utilities just could be left alone. I know that's not
going to happen, but anything that slows down changes in those extraneous things
is fine with me. I'd be perfectly happy if *years* from now I was compiling
Linux 45.10.12 with the same kbuild, CML, gcc and everything else that I'm using
right now.
From: Dave Jones
Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 22:09:22 +0200
Compare and contrast..
-rw-r--r-- 1 davej users 31426560 Jan 9 2001 linux-2.0.39.tar
-rw-r--r-- 1 davej users 85442560 Nov 6 2001 linux-2.2.20.tar
-rw-r--r-- 1 davej users 131727360 Feb 25 20:15 linux-2.4.18.tar
-rw-r--r-- 1 davej users 152524800 May 10 00:11 linux-2.5.15.tar
Spot the pattern? Exponential growth. not only that, but for the most
part, the build system is the same across all of these. If we continue
growing at the current rate without doing something about the build
process, we're all going to be needing 8-way Opterons with several
GB of memory to get any work done.
If kbuild2.5 is faster, and produces the same end result (or better
still, more accurate builds), there's no valid reason to ignore it
that I can see.
Dave.
--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
Wayne Brown == idiot
So he wants to use gcc-2.95 still in 10 years? That's nice...
Later on in the thread he goes on to say even dumber stuff about how he always wanted to have to type mrproper before every compile like he currently does.
The unfortunate thing is that people respond to him even though his posts are complete idiocy. I suspect that he is faking stupidity just to annoy people and waste their time.
Personally, I'm careful about the things I sign my name to on the internet. I'm especially careful on devel lists, since I want people to like me and collaborate on my projects (as opposed to ponking me into a killfile). And since everything on the net is saved for years and it could really damage your reputation if everyone thinks your are either a troll or an idiot.
that's certainly an extremel
that's certainly an extremely stupid argument. if he wants the syntax to stay the same, he can keep using the same version of linux. no need to upgrade it!