From owner-freebsd-current Fri May 2 23:50:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA16440 for current-outgoing; Fri, 2 May 1997 23:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA16432 for ; Fri, 2 May 1997 23:50:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id IAA03119 for current@FreeBSD.ORG; Sat, 3 May 1997 08:50:44 +0200 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA02962; Sat, 3 May 1997 08:46:53 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19970503084653.BI23309@uriah.heep.sax.de> 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.. References: <25335.862526471@time.cdrom.com> <199705021554.IAA21290@austin.polstra.com> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.60_p2-3,5,8-9 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: <199705021554.IAA21290@austin.polstra.com>; from John Polstra on May 2, 1997 08:54:10 -0700 Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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. ;-)