From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 8 16:11:35 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E96106566B; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:11:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from mail.xcllnt.net (mail.xcllnt.net [70.36.220.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DFBB8FC0A; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 16:11:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sa-nc-cs-116.static.jnpr.net (natint3.juniper.net [66.129.224.36]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.xcllnt.net (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q98GBW7O082253 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:11:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Marcel Moolenaar In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:11:29 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <127FA63D-8EEE-4616-AE1E-C39469DDCC6A@xcllnt.net> References: <201210020750.23358.jhb@freebsd.org> <201210021037.27762.jhb@freebsd.org> To: Garrett Cooper X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, "Simon J. Gerraty" Subject: Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:11:35 -0000 On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Garrett Cooper 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