From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 26 17:56:00 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 664) id 3E6B5412; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:56:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:55:59 -0700 From: David O'Brien To: Marcel Moolenaar Subject: Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program Message-ID: <20121026175559.GA44331@dragon.NUXI.org> Mail-Followup-To: obrien@freebsd.org, Marcel Moolenaar , Garrett Cooper , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG, "Simon J. Gerraty" References: <201210020750.23358.jhb@freebsd.org> <201210021037.27762.jhb@freebsd.org> <127FA63D-8EEE-4616-AE1E-C39469DDCC6A@xcllnt.net> <20121025211522.GA32636@dragon.NUXI.org> <3F52B7C9-A7B7-4E0E-87D0-1E67FE5D0BA7@xcllnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F52B7C9-A7B7-4E0E-87D0-1E67FE5D0BA7@xcllnt.net> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT X-to-the-FBI-CIA-and-NSA: HI! HOW YA DOIN? can i haz chizburger? User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: Garrett Cooper , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, "Simon J. Gerraty" , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: obrien@freebsd.org List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:56:00 -0000 On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:23:06PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > I think there are 2 reasons why not to: > 1. The people working on ATF have not raised this concern and > have expressed that using the WITH_BMAKE knob is but a small > price to pay. I'm trying to create an ATF test for filemon, but I don't want to have to build make back and forth when I want to build a port. Likely that doesn't put me in the "people working on ATF" in your book. > So let's work the bmake side and be able to > get rid of the knob as soon as possible. Do we have any commitment as to when Portmgr will have bandwidth to for testing bmake (I expect it will be several iterations)? I suspect they're pretty busy with 9.1-RELEASE, so is this gated by 9.1-R? > 2. More knobs isn't better -- we must have none of the knobs in > the end, so the more we create, the more work we have to get > rid of them. That's just more work spent not focusing on the > task at hand and thus more time wasted. What can I and others do to work on this? I'm not on Portmgr and most aren't either. > In short: this isn't a 2-knob problem by any stretch of the > imagination. I disagree. Before sending my mail, I ran this by sjg and his response was: "I have absolutely no objection". -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)