Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 2 Oct 2012 10:37:27 -0400
From:      John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
To:        Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>
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:  <201210021037.27762.jhb@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAGH67wTM1VDrpu7rS=VE1G_kVEOHhS4-OCy5FX_6eDGmiNTA8A@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <CAGH67wRkOmy7rWLkxXnT2155PuSQpwOMyu7dTAKeO1WW2dju7g@mail.gmail.com> <201210020750.23358.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAGH67wTM1VDrpu7rS=VE1G_kVEOHhS4-OCy5FX_6eDGmiNTA8A@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, October 02, 2012 10:29:49 am Garrett Cooper wrote:
> 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.

This is very non-obvious to the public at large (e.g. there was no public 
response to one group's inquiry about the second ATF import for example).  
Also, given that you had no idea that sgf@ and obrien@ were working on 
importing NetBSD's bmake as a prerequisite for ATF, it seems that whatever 
discussions were held were not very detailed at best.  I think it would be 
good to have the various folks working on ATF to at least summarize the 
current state of things and sketch out some sort of plan or roadmap for future 
work in a public forum (such as atf@, though a summary mail would be quite 
appropriate for arch@).

-- 
John Baldwin



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201210021037.27762.jhb>