Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 07:29:49 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fwd: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program Message-ID: <CAGH67wTM1VDrpu7rS=VE1G_kVEOHhS4-OCy5FX_6eDGmiNTA8A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201210020750.23358.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <CAGH67wRkOmy7rWLkxXnT2155PuSQpwOMyu7dTAKeO1WW2dju7g@mail.gmail.com> <CDA41F27-73C1-47CF-B84D-2627B1F7E7D8@xcllnt.net> <20121001223100.E7D0D58093@chaos.jnpr.net> <201210020750.23358.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:50 AM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: ... > 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. For the record, gnu/cc/cc_tools/Makefile is where I first spotted a potential "bsd.progs.mk" candidate. Most of the other code doesn't care given how things are organized in our source tree. > 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. Both parties (Isilon/Juniper) are converging on the ATF porting work that Giorgos/myself have done after talking at the FreeBSD Foundation meet-n-greet. I have contributed all of the patches that I have other to marcel for feedback. > Do we already have a freebsd-atf@ mailing list? If not, perhaps we > should create one and start these discussions there? Probably wouldn't be a bad idea as I'm currently suspended a bit waiting on feedback for how to proceed; too bad freebsd-test is being used for other things :).. Thanks! -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGH67wTM1VDrpu7rS=VE1G_kVEOHhS4-OCy5FX_6eDGmiNTA8A>