Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:11:29 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> Subject: Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program Message-ID: <127FA63D-8EEE-4616-AE1E-C39469DDCC6A@xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <CAGH67wQffjVHqFw_eN=mfeg-Ac2Z6XBT5Hv72ev0kjjx7YH7SA@mail.gmail.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Hang on. I want in on the blame part! :-)
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.
I just committed the bmake bits. It not only adds bmake to the build,
but also includes the changes necessary to use bmake.
With that in place it's easier to decide whether we want the dependency
or not.
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
Then:
4. Switch.
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
Marcel Moolenaar
marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?127FA63D-8EEE-4616-AE1E-C39469DDCC6A>