Date: Fri, 02 May 1997 08:54:10 -0700 From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -current build is now broken.. Message-ID: <199705021554.IAA21290@austin.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <25335.862526471@time.cdrom.com> References: <25335.862526471@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <25335.862526471@time.cdrom.com>, Jordan K. Hubbard <jkh@time.cdrom.com> wrote: > Also, as I said, now that we're *bootstrapping* many 3.0 builds from > 2.2 ones there are even more issues involved and, while I'd love to be > able to say "chicken and egg, install a 3.0 machine to make 3.0 > releases and simplify the makesfiles", I simply don't have the > resources to have *both* 2.2 and 3.0 release building machines > available at the moment (though it'd sure be nice) nor do, I believe, > the other release engineers. That's another one of them-there > "real-world constraints" I mentioned earlier. :-) I think it is reasonable to require that it be possible to bootstrap a make world for 3.0 on a 2.2 machine. But I do not think it is reasonable to require that it be possible to bootstrap a make _release_ for 3.0 on a 2.2 machine. The changes that might break a make release aren't just confined to the *.mk files and /usr/src/Makefile. There are many other potential problem areas. Any changes to include files, libraries, compiler, assembler, linker, c*rt0.o files -- any of them might cause bootstrapping problems for make release. When you include all the problem areas, suddenly 90% of the developers are working in the area of risk. Most developers (myself included) don't understand make release well enough to feel confident of avoiding problems in this area. Not to mention that they don't have the time or machine resources to test release builds. (My -current building machine is a 486. It takes >>12 hours just to do a make world. *sob*) Whereas a make world is essentially a system upgrade that will be done by many users as well as developers, a make release is a very specialized operation that is likely to be done by only a few release engineers and nobody else. I understand the following point about lack of resources: > I simply don't have the resources to have *both* 2.2 and 3.0 release > building machines available at the moment But it seems that you are asking most developers themselves to acquire exactly those resources, or to have one of the few (3?) release engineers review any changes to *.mk, /usr/src/Makefile, include files, libraries, compiler, assembler, linker, ... creating a very narrow bottleneck indeed. Wouldn't it make more sense to solicit whatever contributions are needed to put the required resources (3 disk drives total?) into the hands of the few release engineers, so that they can have release building machines running -current? John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Self-knowledge is always bad news." -- John Barth
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199705021554.IAA21290>