Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:45:57 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Voyager phys_cpu_present_map compile error |
| |
Adrian Bunk wrote: > > I'm not claiming it was the end of the world if someone accidentally > breaks Voyager. > > But Ingo wanted me to stop to sometimes compile test Voyager. >
It would be good if "make randconfig" didn't go down this or other "secondary" paths.
>> James has offered to fix up Voyager breakage a posteori, and that is the >> appropriate action for a niche architecture like this. > > I'm still not getting the point why we should ever wait for James for > doing things like > - select HAVE_ARCH_KGDB > + select HAVE_ARCH_KGDB if !X86_VOYAGER > > And the other compile breakages we had recently weren't much worse. > > I fully agree that it makes sense that Voyager problems should not be > showstoppers and that James is the one capable and responsible of fixing > non-trivial issues.
That's fine, IMHO, just don't require *other* people to worry about it.
-hpa
| |