Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 06:30:11 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: ru@freebsd.org Cc: kientzle@acm.org Subject: Re: Can't build -CURRENT on 4.7 Message-ID: <20030607.063011.59655139.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20030607113546.GB98826@sunbay.com> References: <3EE16E0F.2050207@acm.org> <20030607065700.GA59525@dragon.nuxi.com> <20030607113546.GB98826@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20030607113546.GB98826@sunbay.com>
Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> writes:
: On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 11:57:00PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
: > On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:46:07PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
: > > The compiler in 4.7 does not like this:
: > >
: > > -std=gnu99
: > >
: > > As a result, buildworld of -CURRENT fails
: > > rather early.
: >
: > Committers are not required to support building 5-CURRENT, post
: > 5.0-RELEASE on a 4.7 machine. So this is not grounds to remove the
: > change. However, someone will probably patch the build system to
: > tolerate it.
: >
: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that this support
: will no longer be _required_ when we have a first release on the
: RELENG_5 (-STABLE) branch. trb@?
First off, I'd like to say that's my understanding as well.
Having said that, let's not get overly anal about the rules here.
There's still a great need to have current build on 4.x machines.
This is a long standing range war between ruslan and david over how
much compatibility should be there. I do not want to see it play out
in public again, but fear that it might.
Let's apply some common sense to this exceptional situation we find
ourselves in and not resort to being overly pedantic about rules.
There are a number of people who cannot run a 5.0-RELEASE system on
their hardware because it was too instable to build a world. So
requiring a trip through 5.0 is not an option. Therefore, we have to
tolerate going from 4.x to at least 5.1 and maybe a little farther.
We're just barely past 5.1 right now, so it is a little fast to be
breaking this path.
I personally don't see that the addition of -std=gnu99 is enough of a
win in -current to justify its painful addition and the issue of
-stable compatibility is secondary to that. It's been added 3 or 4
times now and every time the world has broken on some architecture.
That alone is reason to treat the change with some skeptism as to its
correctness.
My main point, however, is that common sense needs to be applied to
this situation, not blind adherence to inflexible rules. That's the
sort of thing that gets us as a project into trouble.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030607.063011.59655139.imp>