From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Feb  5 06:35:29 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id ED1E616A4CE; Thu,  5 Feb 2004 06:35:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6A76543D53; Thu,  5 Feb 2004 06:35:27 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i15EZQnJ026166;
	Thu, 5 Feb 2004 07:35:26 -0700 (MST)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 07:35:15 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <20040205.073515.105171131.imp@bsdimp.com>
To: ru@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040205143324.GB17770@FreeBSD.org.ua>
References: <20040205091634.GC13932@FreeBSD.org.ua>
	<20040205.072827.64789687.imp@bsdimp.com>
	<20040205143324.GB17770@FreeBSD.org.ua>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Very long SRCS list with unusually long src/ prefix
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 14:35:29 -0000

On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 07:28:27AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> This looks relatively good to me.  It is a little cleaner than that
> patches that we have in our tree, which are slightly less efficient.
> We've not noticed any slowdown by using them.  I think this is
> critical for 5.3 and we should put it in now.

Oh, and we've been using our patch for 2 years now w/o bad things
happening.  We have a build system that tends to expand the paths
beyond the limit.  Part of that is that we build a chroot enviornment
that we then use to build our product so we can update the host
enviornment w/o worrying about breaking the target (of course, minor
speed-bumps along the way happen, but that's life).  It has worked out
really well.

Warner