Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 07:50:23 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> Subject: Re: Fwd: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program Message-ID: <201210020750.23358.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20121001223100.E7D0D58093@chaos.jnpr.net> References: <CAGH67wRkOmy7rWLkxXnT2155PuSQpwOMyu7dTAKeO1WW2dju7g@mail.gmail.com> <CDA41F27-73C1-47CF-B84D-2627B1F7E7D8@xcllnt.net> <20121001223100.E7D0D58093@chaos.jnpr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, October 01, 2012 6:31:00 pm Simon J. Gerraty wrote: > Hi Garrett, > > >> From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> > >> Subject: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple = > >programs instead of a singular program > >> Date: September 2, 2012 11:01:09 PM PDT > >> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org > >> Cc: "freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Arch" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> > >>=20 > >> Hello, > >> I've been a bit busy working on porting over ATF from NetBSD, and > > Thanks, we've been using ATF in Junos for a while and glad to see it > being imported to FreeBSD. > > >> one of the pieces that's currently not available in FreeBSD that's > >> available in NetBSD is the ability to understand and compile multiple > >> programs. In order to do this I had to refactor bsd.prog.mk (a lot). > > A change like this to bsd.prog.mk can have considerable fallout. > Eg. any makefile that tweaks OBJS is suddenly out of luck. > > Not to mention the fact that bsd.prog.mk goes from being relatively > simple, to unspeakably hard to read, and all for rather limited return. > > Apart from ATF, is there any huge demand for building multiple progs in > the same directory? > > FWIW we use progs.mk (as bsd.progs.mk) from > ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/misc/sjg/mk-*.tar.gz > It isn't ideal, but it certainly avoids a lot of churn and complexity > for what is essentially a corner case. This sounds like a superior approach. It doesn't break any current use cases while giving the ability to build multiple programs in the few places that need it. It sounds like there are a few places under gnu/ from Garrett's reply that might be able to make use of this as well. BTW, one general comment. There seem to be two completely independent groups of folks working on ATF (e.g. there have been two different imports of ATF into the tree in two different locations IIRC, and now we have two different sets of patches to our system makefiles). Are these two groups talking to each other at all? I know in May that many folks (certainly multiple vendors) are interested in ATF, and it seems that both Juniper and Isilon have ported ATF internally. It seems that it might be good for the two groups to work together to avoid stomping on each other's toes. It seems there are some differences in the two approaches that merit working out to avoid a lot of wasted effort on both sides. Do we already have a freebsd-atf@ mailing list? If not, perhaps we should create one and start these discussions there? -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201210020750.23358.jhb>