Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:17:09 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] fully integrate etc/Makefile into bsd.prog.mk Message-ID: <5421F165.7030304@wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <CAGHfRMBbG6mjpxZ1dLT=jQRTzAsgO%2BRomLyGAsTOaOw6cHBUSw@mail.gmail.com> References: <11E49217-8154-47AC-8D39-68256017D3A8@gmail.com> <0A216B9F-3437-461E-A52A-032F6B86B5F2@bsdimp.com> <CAGHfRMBbG6mjpxZ1dLT=jQRTzAsgO%2BRomLyGAsTOaOw6cHBUSw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --lqNQQP0QkqoEXnWCKgfihtM0qThktO67X Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 9/23/14 3:01 PM, NGie Cooper wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >> >> On Sep 23, 2014, at 2:41 AM, Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> wr= ote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> I was wondering if anyone would have any serious objections to me = converting etc/Makefile . The rationale for doing this work would be to e= ase maintenance/customization. >> >> Converting it from what to what? >=20 [..] > The three observations above are separate items and somewhat > orthogonal/parallel to the work being discussed above (maybe I should > have titled the thread "cleaning up the etc/Makefile kitchensink", but > I was trying to be less bikesheddy). Please keep in mind that the interface here to release build processes ha= s been relatively stable for a long time. Gratuitous changes for no clear benefit would not be well received if it means having to do things significantly differently on some branches to others. Knowledge of how this works, and/or workarounds for the quirks in it embedded in at least the following: mergemaster etcupdate snapshot builder release build process cluster release build process my employer's release build process, along with other people's. If there's a clear benefit that makes disrupting those all worth it, it h= ad better be more tangible than "it looks cleaner". You're right that it's far from pretty, but its dealt with the same way a= t least as far back as stable/4 and consistency is important to some of us.= --=20 Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; KI6F= JV --lqNQQP0QkqoEXnWCKgfihtM0qThktO67X Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUIfFlAAoJEDXWlwnsgJ4EeNwH/RyMCpxZ9DJQg54urQ13uSrg FbYCsHtRS214XRNzbrvCLuUsS5spPNWIJb/BBGvGGA5799TDfH01qhHXBkAgM5rg FUaE8FniYEmlqmdQ+gQiCgM4TXCvrXih1rjvOa7LOX2eVqjkpQchM4FXlSKcK/Is FQngL84rEZK1VYGPQ1pmghca4rNlJEJ+xAhocxY+j1+vjw2RIDcMkFCnfVM5c9+S bErCFjk26y1AanNYxLNYyrSQ4tyekMW01f21Cd9x32jnBVO9PAA9HYKZLhOt9Vz7 QpGS1YPl50yjZSu/2dcbgyKmu6DcceEhRc53SVJPwjIUq5CsmvkgSJBnFMP43e8= =aPO2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lqNQQP0QkqoEXnWCKgfihtM0qThktO67X--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5421F165.7030304>