Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3

[Mike Galbraith]

>Why?  Because I didn't mention who said it?  OK, it was Giacomo Catenazzi.  You
>can read the original article yourself at
>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=100748835520343&w=2 if you wish.
>In case you don't here's the relevant part.  I had asked what the differences
>were between the old and new versions, and Giacomo replied with this:
>
>
>>The new kbuild-2.5 (also the new Makefile)
>>will no more work with your command:
>>make dep: is no more needed
>>make bzlilo modules modules_install: it would be a simble
>>make install: (and you configure with CML1/CML2 what install
>>means).
>
>
>Satisfied now?  Or did you mean I should have installed kbuild2.5 and found out
>for myself?  If I had any interest in using it that would be reasonable.  But
>all I wanted was to find out how bad things are going to be after I eventually
>get stuck with it.  So I asked for information from someone who already knew
>about it.  Do you ever take anyone else's word for anything, or do you always
>have to try everything out for yourself?

I meant precisely this:  Given that you have obviously not tried kbuild 2.5, your comments are utterly meaningless.  The fact that you are satisfied with the old kbuild has absolutely nothing to do with kbuild 2.5 or it's being ready for integration into the 2.5 kernel  (clue: the development tree.. where things change/improve).

>This is my last post on this subject.  There doesn't seem to be anyone here who
>understands the concept of being satisfied with a tool and seeing no need to
>improve it.  If I'm not satisfied with something, I'll expend large amounts of
>time, effort and money to achieve even trivial improvements.  But if I *am*
>satisfied with something, then I don't want to spend even a trivial amount of
>effort trying to achieve "improvements" that I don't need.
>
>I never expected everyone to abandon their own needs to satisfy mine.  It would
>be nice if they tried to accomodate my needs while satisfying their own, but I
>didn't expect that either.  What I expect is that kbuild 2.5 (and eventually
>CML2) will show up in the kernel sooner or later, and I'll just have to live
>with it.  All my original message on this subject was intended to do was to
>point out that not everyone was happy with the situation.  The rest of you have
>reacted as if you're afraid Linus might listen to me and do it my way.  Well,
>relax, I doubt he cares any more about what I want than the rest of you do.  At
>least he didn't feel the need to jump down my throat about it.

I did not jump down your throat, I carefully molded my reply to be as accurate as possible, and aimed it at your head.   Unfortunately, your buttocks seem to have also been in the line of fire.

>I don't need the new kbuild.  I don't want the new kbuild.  But I'm going to be
>stuck with it, and there's nothing I can do to stop it.  So for those of you who
>DO want it, why is it such a burden hear that not everyone thinks the way you
>do?  

You're right..  we do think differently.

I don't want the existing problems with the kernel build process to continue forever, and that Keith is doing something about them.  I think that's great.

	-Mike

>"Mike Galbraith" <[e-mail]> on 05/18/2002 05:25:11 AM
>
>To:
>cc:    (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)
>
>Subject:  Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel - take 3
>
>
>
>>Someone said here on the list a few months ago that "make bzlilo" was replaced
>>by "make install" and that it was necessary to configure the "install" option's
>>behavior.
>
>Someone said?  Your opinion on this subject just lost all of it's value.
>
>     -Mike