Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:53:07 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_tc.c src/sys/net rtsock.c src/sys/netipx ipx_proto.c src/sys/netnatm natm_proto.c Message-ID: <4324DF83.1030202@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20050912013616.GA78451@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <200509071006.j87A6E8s012380@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050911222701.W33344@fledge.watson.org> <20050912013616.GA78451@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 10:29:16PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: > >>On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, David E. O'Brien wrote: >> >>>Modified files: >>> sys/kern kern_tc.c >>> sys/net rtsock.c >>> sys/netipx ipx_proto.c >>> sys/netnatm natm_proto.c >>>Log: >>>Forward declaring static variables as extern is invalid ISO-C. Now that >>>GCC can properly handle forward static declarations, do this properly. >> >>As a result of this change, it is no longer possible to build 7.x kernels >>on 6.x worlds without building all of world or tweaking kernel makefiles. > > > We do not support building a HEAD kernel on a RELENG_ box. Never have. > That it usually works for you is just gravy. > > The documented minimal steps to build a HEAD kernel is: > > make kernel-toolchain > make -DALWAYS_CHECK_MAKE buildkernel KERNCONF=YOUR_KERNEL_HERE > > >>While that's not a formally supported configuration, it makes it a lot >>easier and faster to do development from a central buildbox on a farm of >>test systems. > > > Building a HEAD kernel on RELENG_ isn't anywhere near a supported > configuration. I really don't know where you got the idea it was. On a > 6.0-beta2 machine I just did a HEAD 'make kernel-toolchain' - it took > 3m53.49s and allowed me to build a HEAD kernel just fine. > It might not be supported, but having it work helps people do work. Having it break for trivial reasons is frustrating and slows down work. > >>In the future, could you merge the gcc fixes to the relevant branches >>before merging the dependent C changes, in order to avoid this sort of >>thing? > > > I'm afraid that is unreasonable to do in this case. I'd be waiting an > undetermined amount of time for RELENG_6 to thaw before I could do this > work. Alternatively, you could ask to MFC it to RELENG_6. I would have happily said 'yes'. I agree with Robert on this point. > HEAD was already frozen for 1 months this year - you're > effectively asking me to work as if is frozen for an additional 2 months. > On top of that - the "relevant branches" is HEAD and only HEAD. Which > is where the GCC fixes were committed before depending on them. > > Note that I did the RELENG_5 MFC for you personally, knowing you do try > to build HEAD kernels on RELENG_*. I would have MFC'ed to RELENG_6 for > your benefit, but its frozen. You are an RE - please feel free to MFC > the bug fix. I certainly would not mind. :-) > David, you're shifting blame here, whatever little blame there is. Please be a good team player and ask to MFC the change to RELENG_6. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4324DF83.1030202>