[ CCed to bug-hurd. Please reply where it is appropriate. ] On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 04:08:05PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > You should put Linux's original files (i.e. the versions your patch > is based on) into linux/src/ and put your modified files into > linux/dev/. The files from linux/dev/ will shadow the linux/src/ > ones. > > I disagree very strongly (and thus disagree with the comment in one of > the Makefiles if it is to be followed blindly).
I agree to your statements. I was merely quoting and trying to interpret that Makefile and the "common practice" I saw so far (not that much, though ;-). > Code that is hacked > to work specifically for Mach and/or the Hurd should be put into > linux/dev, but code that has been only modifed to add a PCI ID, > updated or has a bug fixed and contains no Mach/Hurd specific code > should always go into linux/src. However, later it must still be obvious to figure out easily if a committed change is an update from Linux-2.0.x, a backport from e.g. Linux-2.2.x, or a Mach-specific change. The ChangeLog is not always explicit there, at least IMHO. > If we follow the "rule" that you note we will have lots of moving > files back and forth for no apparant reason, and thus making things > impossible to follow. Imaging the following scenario [...] That would be less of a problem, if the revision control system supported file renames, etc., which the currently used one doesn't. On a related side-note: I'm currently bootstrapping the Glorious Glasgow Haskell Compiler <URL:http://www.haskell.org/ghc/> on GNU/Hurd to be able to build darcs <URL:http://darcs.net/> to be able to use my revision control system of choice. Regards, Thomas _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
