Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:13:11 +0100 From: Wilko Bulte <wb@freebie.xs4all.nl> To: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, sparc64@freebsd.org, kris@obsecurity.org, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64 Message-ID: <20060204111311.GA47047@freebie.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <20060204135216.P84050@woozle.rinet.ru> References: <861wykr9vx.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060203.105305.71186162.imp@bsdimp.com> <43E4142A.4@samsco.org> <20060203.215549.74746986.imp@bsdimp.com> <20060204092225.GB46310@freebie.xs4all.nl> <20060204135216.P84050@woozle.rinet.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 01:54:14PM +0300, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote.. > On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Wilko Bulte wrote: > > [snip] > > WB> > My point is that it is unreasonable to get bitched at for tinerbox > WB> > breakages that don't show up when building lint because the tinderbox > WB> > person is too stubborn to not use non-standard flags. > WB> > WB> I would think that the tinderboxes should run 100% the same flags as > WB> what normal release builds use. Nothing more, nothing less. > > Well, why not take the portbuild approach then? > > Build standard tinderboxen with standard source and compile flags set, and > *also* experimental sets with experimental flags and possibly experimental > source patches... Probably needs more hardware to keep a reasonable tinderbox frequency. -- Wilko Bulte wilko@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060204111311.GA47047>