Re: [linuxsh-dev] scripts/treelink.sh

[Paul M. <le...@li...>]

On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 10:23:06AM +0900, SUGIOKA Toshinobu wrote:
> Well, I know what drop-in tree is. And I think it's something inconvenient
> on some situation.
> (1) There seems no simple way to see which files should be removed from the stock kernel,
>     so it's a bit hard to create complete patch against stock kernel from drop-in tree.

I don't see how this is hard, I usually extract mainline source into
linux-2.5.xx.orig and then have a seperate directory where i treelink
the drop-in tree over. If I want patches between the drop-in and
mainline, I just diff against the .orig and the treelinked tree and add
-x CVS to diff, this works fine for me.

> (2) We can not automatically detect if these incorrect files are included in some source file by mistake,
>     because compiler may not complain.
> (3) Some one who want to analyze the kernel source of sh-port might be confused by these useless files.
> (4) Once kernel maintainer synchronized stock kernel to our CVS tree, should we remove almost all files
>     from CVS tree ?, and soon in the next kernel version, should some files be restored and modified ?
>     Do you really want to do this ?
> 
That was my original intent. But I have scripts that deal with most of
this for me, so for instance if I go to apply a patch over the drop-in
tree, stock files are copied out from mainline tree before patch is run.

Either way, most of the "useless" files in mainline should be gone
shortly, since I just synced with mainline a little while ago.

> I don't want to accept these inconveniences. We could maintain whole arch/sh and include/asm-sh
> with a few transfer size penalty. It should be much better IMHO.
> 
I suppose its not a big deal either way, the size is pretty
minimalistic. If entire arch/sh and include/asm-sh is more convenient,
then we can certainly leave it that way as well. (At present there
shouldn't be too many files missing).