[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       bitkeeper-users
Subject:    Re: [Bitkeeper-users] kernel building from clean BitKeeper tree
From:       Sam Ravnborg <sam () ravnborg ! org>
Date:       2004-02-24 6:05:46
Message-ID: 20040224065610.GA2218 () mars ! ravnborg ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 08:13:53PM -0700, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> (changed subject to reflect straying from original topic)
> 
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> 
> >I've seen problems like this in parallel makes because the makefiles didn't
> >have dependencies set correctly, in the kernel in fact.  But I've never
> >seen it with a non-parallel build and I run this way with BK daily.  Lots.
> 
> Well, I can reproduce it easily, so it must be a problem in the kernel 
> build system. I did the following (with no special bk preferences, no 
> "auto get" turned on):
> 
> $ bk clone bk://path/to/linux-2.6
> $ mkdir foo
> $ cd linux-2.6
> $ make O=../foo

I've never tried to optimize kbuild for such a case.
kbuild assume files are present, and the file that can be retreived
from bk is due to built-in rules that I one day may decide to turn off.
Why shoull all the non-bk users wait for a processing of these rules,
when they anyway does not work in all cases.

I you think there is something wrong in kbuild with respect to
dependencies say so. and I will tak a llok. That concerns me much more.


	Sam
_______________________________________________
Bitkeeper-users mailing list
Bitkeeper-users@bitmover.com
http://bitmover.com/mailman/listinfo/bitkeeper-users
To unsubscribe from this list, go to the above URL, follow instruction at the bottom of the web page.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]