Re: [PATCH 18 of 20] ipath - kbuild infrastructure

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 11:00:07AM -0800, Roland Dreier wrote:
>     Sam> Eventually - yes.  But not just now. Kbuild was introduced
>     Sam> because it was needed in the top-level directory and it made
>     Sam> good sense to do so.  But for now keeping Makefile is a good
>     Sam> choice. This is anyway what people are used to.
> 
> OK, disregard my suggestion then.  Should we patch
> Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt to correct the current
> documentation, which says:
> 
>   The preferred name for the kbuild files is 'Kbuild' but 'Makefile'
>   will continue to be supported. All new developmen is expected to use
>   the Kbuild filename.

I've just checked in the following patch:

diff --git a/Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt b/Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt
index 99d51a5..a9c00fa 100644
--- a/Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt
+++ b/Documentation/kbuild/makefiles.txt
@@ -106,9 +106,9 @@ This document is aimed towards normal de
 Most Makefiles within the kernel are kbuild Makefiles that use the
 kbuild infrastructure. This chapter introduce the syntax used in the
 kbuild makefiles.
-The preferred name for the kbuild files is 'Kbuild' but 'Makefile' will
-continue to be supported. All new developmen is expected to use the
-Kbuild filename.
+The preferred name for the kbuild files are 'Makefile' but 'Kbuild' can
+be used and if both a 'Makefile' and a 'Kbuild' file exists then the 'Kbuild'
+file will be used.
 
 Section 3.1 "Goal definitions" is a quick intro, further chapters provide
 more details, with real examples.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/