> On Sun, 14 Mar 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > The only objection I've gotten to this so far is from Ingo, who claimed it
> > > would encourage forking. Any others?
> >
> > I don't think its a big issue. In terms of -ac certainly the ultimate aim
> > is to have -ac contain nothing exciting enough to make anyone download it
> > over the Linus tree
>
> I don't think forking's much of an issue either. But being able to keep
> track of which patches you're using (especially if someone gives you a
> precompiled kernel) is useful. Together with the config.gz thing, this
> will let you report most of the relevant info about a running kernel
> (config options, compiler, applied patches) with a simple script.
>
> And simply being able to build 2.2.x and 2.2.x+foo on the same machine
> without having them overwrite each other's modules should be worth it by
> itself for developers.
Can't you already do this since EXTRAVERSION is still in the Makefile and
all the associated scripts??? I know that I had a 2.2.2 and a 2.2.2-ac7
built with separate module directories, etc.
Jeremy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/