Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:22:55 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, John Birrell <jb@freebsd.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, John Birrell <jb@what-creek.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src Makefile Message-ID: <C5830363-526E-4D79-99CD-C56A57C000D6@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <e7db6d980805271535h5533862bk44d7167c77106852@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080525221112.GH5179@what-creek.com> <21823.1211785618@critter.freebsd.dk> <e7db6d980805262223y4ee76253u1ad9d29213fd580@mail.gmail.com> <20080527110625.GA97301@zim.MIT.EDU> <e7db6d980805271535h5533862bk44d7167c77106852@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 27, 2008, at 3:35 PM, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 4:06 AM, David Schultz <das@freebsd.org> > wrote: >> On Mon, May 26, 2008, Peter Wemm wrote: >>> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk >>> > wrote: >>>> In message <20080525221112.GH5179@what-creek.com>, John Birrell >>>> writes: >>>> >>>>> I will back out the change, but I think you are making the >>>>> 'universe' target >>>>> out to be more than was intended. We used to talk about tiers. >>>>> We seem to have >>>>> lost sight of that. >>>> >>>> No, architecture tiers is about code how well the code runs, make >>>> universe is simply a way to keep it compiling. >>> >>> sparc64 and sun4v share userland. The sparc64 in universe overs 99% >>> of the compile test for sun4v already. >>> >>> It seems a shame to compile sparc64 userland twice for universe. >>> And >>> on that note, do we compile i386 twice for i386 and pc98? >>> >>> I might find myself more inclined to use 'universe' if it had less >>> duplicated work. >> >> I've always thought it would be nice to have a stripped-down >> version of make universe (make galaxy?) that compiled for a >> representative sample of platforms, and with only one or two >> kernels per platform instead of 3 or 4 or 5. For small changes, >> this represents a better tradeoff in time spent compiling vs. the >> cost of things breaking occasionally. For actively developed >> platforms, breaking the build wastes lots of people's time; for >> everything else, there's tinderbox. > > "make tier1" ? (Stuff which must not be broken) > "make tier2" etc. These are bad ideas, because people *WILL* do the absolute minimum and as such will end up breaking non-tier1 platforms even more often than they do already. People need to remember that maintainers of non-tier1 platforms spend most of their time fixing problems that can easily be dealt with by the 300+ developers not worrying about non-tier1 (as it hardly ever requires in-depth knowledge of the platform). For the non-tier1 maintainers this is a *BIG* waste of their time... FYI, -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C5830363-526E-4D79-99CD-C56A57C000D6>