Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 10:23:51 -0800 (PST) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, Ed Maste <emaste@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX Message-ID: <202111261823.1AQINp2R025794@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <20211126180239.rwuaaq3onohjoywv@aniel.nours.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 09:09:54AM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > [ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ] > > > On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 04:09, Rodney W. Grimes > > > <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > So is the feature model of FreeBSD becoming, oh it gets broken > > > > cause it is not regularly tested, so lets remove that feature. > > > > > > I don't agree with that. We have a large and growing CI infrastructure > > > to regularly test functionality and are continually adding to it over > > > time. But it's important to test and maintain what is actually used > > > and is useful. Disabling C++ support made sense when obrien@ added the > > > original knob in 2000, but it makes less sense today when parts of > > > FreeBSD are written in C++. > > > > > > > You can disagree with my assertion, but I shall continue to assert > > that it *seems* as if rather than adding B O S to the CI such that > > it is not only regularly tested, but continuously tested is the > > correct path forward here. Removing an option that seems to > > break due to not beeing tested (your original assertion) is not > > only false (I pointed out, and do know for a fact that Michael > > Dexter runs BOS on a very regulary basis, infact near continously.) > > and the wrong path forward. > > > > Fix the broken stuff, stop letting stuff rot because you don't care > > to work on it, or because it is not being "tested". > > This is a volunteer based project people are doing their best to try to fix > broken stuff if > 1/ they are aware of the issue > 2/ if they are able to fix it. > > The limit of a volunteer project is how much time everyone can dedicate to it. > The more options we have and more complex it is to ensure that every > combinations do work. Every combination is not at issue here, what is at issue here is the fact that single options if used get broken. B O S catches these, that is all. > > It is interesting how much you are patronizing every one on what should be > fixed and what should be done and how but you are actually doing nothing as an > individual to help here, you can volunteer to fix things at your level you know? Doing nothing, Hum, ok, as usual you attacking the person, without full knowledge of what a person may or may not do (you do NOT have visibility into my world), Dexter would not even be running BOS had I not spent time helping him getting it set up, and helping him get the initial brokeness in a state that the fall out was an approachable task. > > This thread is about the usefulness of an option, and yet noone has demonstrated > the usefulness of WITHOUT_CXX here in 2021. Seems more false assertions, I do believe 2 people in the thread have asserted that they a) use this option and b) find its function useful. > > For any embedded systems the WITHOUT_* have never been enough and there are way > to build a very very tiny viable FreeBSD image in an industrial manner which are > way more efficient that the WITHOUT KNOBS. I am not saying we should stop > providing those, just we should stop maintaining the one that makes no sense > anymore or are very complicated to maintain. Exists, is used, presently works. Does it make sense to remove it? > Best regards, > Bapt -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?202111261823.1AQINp2R025794>