Re: Makefile: uses rsync(1), could this be optional?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 1/21/22 08:36, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> Guten Tag.
> 
> Masahiro Yamada wrote in
>  <CAK7LNAQOm8NYiTDQnd0P-UsGa7GurffQiWQgGh0Cze4wLmDmgA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>  |On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 4:31 AM Steffen Nurpmeso <steffen@xxxxxxxxxx> \
>  |wrote:
>  |> I sent this to linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on the 15th, which
>  |> seems to be legacy.  Just in case someone is wondering about the
>  |> resend.
>  |
>  |I did not see your previous post.
>  |What is bad about using rsync?
> 
> Oh really nothing, but this Linux distribution (CRUX) recreates
> Linux headers before the GNU LibC is build, and this is the only
> dependency of rsync around.  And, unless i am mistaken, the other
> code path is more expensive but otherwise functionally equivalent?

Do we need to add it to Documentation/Changes?

>  |> As a not-yet-tested low-quality Makefile suggestion, with modern
>  |> GNU tools and find(1)'s -printf, wouldn't the following code work
>  |> out gracefully in practice?  (Not subscribed.)


-- 
~Randy



[Index of Archives]     [Linux&nblp;USB Development]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Secrets]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux