[linux-kernel added. Please keep both bug-make and linux-kernel]
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:46:25AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Content-Description: message body text
> Hi all. I've set Reply-To: to the bug-make@gnu.org list; I'm hoping we
> can keep the discussion there since I don't subscri
Jesper Juhl wrote:
On 3/6/06, Giacomo A. Catenazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
sr> Suggestion:
sr> We are now warned about an incompatibility in kbuild and we will
sr> fix this asap. But that you postpone this particular behaviour
sr> change until next make release. M
%% Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
sr> I foresee a lot of mails to lkml the next year or more with this
sr> issue if kept. People do build older kernels and continue to do so
sr> the next long time. Especially the embedded market seem keen to
sr> stay at 2.4 (wonder why), and as s
Sam Ravnborg wrote:
sr> Suggestion:
sr> We are now warned about an incompatibility in kbuild and we will
sr> fix this asap. But that you postpone this particular behaviour
sr> change until next make release. Maybe you add in this change as
sr> the first thing after the stable relase so
On 3/6/06, Giacomo A. Catenazzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> >> sr> Suggestion:
> >> sr> We are now warned about an incompatibility in kbuild and we will
> >> sr> fix this asap. But that you postpone this particular behaviour
> >> sr> change until next make release. Ma
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 05:21:08PM -0500, Paul D. Smith wrote:
> %% Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> sr> I foresee a lot of mails to lkml the next year or more with this
> sr> issue if kept. People do build older kernels and continue to do so
> sr> the next long time. Especially
Hi all. I've set Reply-To: to the bug-make@gnu.org list; I'm hoping we
can keep the discussion there since I don't subscribe to kbuild-devel.
I'm working on getting the next release of GNU make, 3.81, out the door
(amazing!) The weekend before last I released 3.81rc1 for people to
test. A day
