Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 3 May 1997 08:46:53 +0200
From:      j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch)
To:        current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: -current build is now broken..
Message-ID:  <19970503084653.BI23309@uriah.heep.sax.de>
In-Reply-To: <199705021554.IAA21290@austin.polstra.com>; from John Polstra on May 2, 1997 08:54:10 -0700
References:  <25335.862526471@time.cdrom.com> <199705021554.IAA21290@austin.polstra.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As John Polstra wrote:

> 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.

It is, and it used to work, John.  It should at least not artificially
broken for no good reason.

> The changes that might break a make release aren't just confined
> to the *.mk files and /usr/src/Makefile.

Right.  They are, for example, in the new mount(2) semantics.  But
this has been easily isolatable, by simply always using the mount
binaries that fit for the running kernel.  This allows bootstrapping a
`make release' between 2.2 and 3.0 machines in both directions.

> > 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,

No.  Jordan was telling that it right now only requires the resources
to do a `make release' at all, and it's at the will of the operator
whether he's doing a 2.2 or 3.0 release.

> 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.

I wouldn't go so far as Jordan did here.  However, people working in
areas that are `red zones' for a make release should at least notify
the potential release engineers of this.  I prefer to get the bits via
CVS anyway, since it's fully automatic (and `make release' does its
own CVS checkout).  However, if something breaks in the release
building process, we should fix it ASAP.

-- 
cheers, J"org

joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970503084653.BI23309>