From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 27 14:34:52 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4081A4C0; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:34:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com (mail-bk0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 841AC8FC08; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:34:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id jf20so1598788bkc.13 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:34:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=xr6CM+TFAxSdxAqFFGjWD2ua6cg2AYBcJ47fnQneAqQ=; b=UsKm/EZpnWu6df8SNClJovI+T2TPx9Eh763REKtCrvHRQKTuEDQBWOVE5ygxCz5voV i71N+SSAf7P3g8AX1XOk6cghbUt2MHlDHUgj+zKuMlWXe2g1GGpIccoZvEKE8QArzXI0 rqpnQ+FVvwuRAd2YGOwDxX7zxmWgus7NeBOlrAhTNKjLRZm3OeoEDsnsEKN7jL/3hPM6 vRY0D5D2Tqbzhh4x8zIrWQFGcRJvlO3UgyKvD3wZs8jYzRbIW9obNNhYMPuYBtj/reA/ 3NU6jjALHBROUn8JRlcRaddVGWxwHvoMAionbRDDeyp2u8/v2aFkIHa4C8VP+v9sIuPI DKSw== Received: by 10.204.4.200 with SMTP id 8mr8228983bks.81.1351348490307; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:34:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.50.197 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:34:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <508BF062.8020101@shatow.net> 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> <20121025221244.GG3808@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20121026181152.GC44331@dragon.NUXI.org> <20121026204910.E1FFA58094@chaos.jnpr.net> <20121026233225.54FB858094@chaos.jnpr.net> <508BF062.8020101@shatow.net> From: Chris Rees Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 15:34:19 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program To: Bryan Drewery Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, "Simon J. Gerraty" X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:34:52 -0000 On 27 October 2012 15:32, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 10/27/2012 8:23 AM, Chris Rees wrote: >> [trim CC list a little to stop people regretting replying to this thread] >> >> On 27 October 2012 10:15, Chris Rees wrote: >>> >>> On 27 Oct 2012 00:35, "Simon J. Gerraty" wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:02:00 +0100, Chris Rees writes: >>>>> In that case we have a switch time on the order of years, not weeks; 8.3 >>>>> is >>>>> supported until May '14, and unless we get a :tl etc MFC into 8, even >>>>> longer. All this time the ports tree must work with pmake. >>>> >>>> I'm pretty sure I was told it is already in 8 and 7 >>> >>> Not in 8.3 at least: >>> >>> svnweb.freebsd.org/base/releng/8.3/usr.bin/make/var.c?view=log >>> >>>>> I don't want to discourage you or belittle your excellent work here, but >>>>> Marcel made me very nervous with his comment on the process being "a few >>>>> weeks". >>>> >>>> That was based on discussions at the last devsummit. >>> >>> These discussions need backing up with a real roadmap, including detail on >>> exactly what 8.3 and 7.4 users will have to do to ensure that the ports tree >>> still works. >>> >>> I don't see where these considerations have been made. >> >> OK, so how about this. >> >> We (ab)use the security update mechanism to merge the pmake changes >> (:tl and :tu) into releng/7.4 and releng/8.3 (possibly the earlier >> releng branches such as 7.3, 8.2, 9.0). We could then send out a >> message on ports-announce, giving a few weeks' notice that the change >> to bsd.port.mk is going through and that users need the latest >> 'security' patches. > > This "weeks" is making a assumptions that users 1. reads ports@ or 2. > Update to security/errata patches in a timely manner or 3. Read UPDATING Quite. This should be at least a few months, otherwise we're making unreasonable requests of our users, and yet again annoy them by breaking older versions-- this time with no real benefit for end-users. Chris