Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 15:15:59 -0400 From: George Neville-Neil <gnn@neville-neil.com> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program Message-ID: <1340AB5D-F824-4E7D-9D6C-F7E5489AE870@neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <127FA63D-8EEE-4616-AE1E-C39469DDCC6A@xcllnt.net> References: <CAGH67wRkOmy7rWLkxXnT2155PuSQpwOMyu7dTAKeO1WW2dju7g@mail.gmail.com> <201210020750.23358.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAGH67wTM1VDrpu7rS=VE1G_kVEOHhS4-OCy5FX_6eDGmiNTA8A@mail.gmail.com> <201210021037.27762.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAGH67wQffjVHqFw_eN=mfeg-Ac2Z6XBT5Hv72ev0kjjx7YH7SA@mail.gmail.com> <127FA63D-8EEE-4616-AE1E-C39469DDCC6A@xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 8, 2012, at 12:11 , Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> wrote: >=20 > On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> 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. >>>=20 >>> 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@). >>=20 >> I'm in part to blame for this. There was some discussion -- but not = at >> length; unfortunately no one from Juniper was present at the meet and >> greet; the information I got was second hand; I didn't follow up to >> figure out the exact details / clarify what I had in mind with the >> appropriate parties. >=20 > Hang on. I want in on the blame part! :-) >=20 > Seriously: no-one is really to blame as far as I can see. We just had > two independent efforts (ATF & bmake) and there was no indication that > one would be greatly benefitted from the other. At least not to the > point of creating a dependency. >=20 > I just committed the bmake bits. It not only adds bmake to the build, > but also includes the changes necessary to use bmake. >=20 > With that in place it's easier to decide whether we want the = dependency > or not. >=20 > Before we can switch permanently to bmake, we need to do the following > first: > 1. Request an EXP ports build with bmake as make(1). This should tell > us the "damage" of switching to bmake for ports. > 2. In parallel with 1: build www & docs with bmake and assess the > damage > 3. Fix all the damage >=20 > Then: >=20 > 4. Switch. >=20 > It could be a while (many weeks) before we get to 4, so the question > really is whether the people working on ATF are willing and able to > build and install FreeBSD using WITH_BMAKE? >=20 I think that's a small price to pay for getting going with the ATF stuff now rather than in 4 weeks. What's the right way to do this now with HEAD? Best, George
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1340AB5D-F824-4E7D-9D6C-F7E5489AE870>