Re: Can't build -CURRENT on 4.7

On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 06:30:11AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <20030607113546.GB98826_at_sunbay.com>
>             Ruslan Ermilov <ru_at_freebsd.org> writes:
> : On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 11:57:00PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> : > On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:46:07PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> : > > The compiler in 4.7 does not like this:
> : > > 
> : > >     -std=gnu99
> : > > 
> : > > As a result, buildworld of -CURRENT fails
> : > > rather early.
> : > 
> : > Committers are not required to support building 5-CURRENT, post
> : > 5.0-RELEASE on a 4.7 machine.  So this is not grounds to remove the
> : > change.  However, someone will probably patch the build system to
> : > tolerate it.
> : > 
> : Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that this support
> : will no longer be _required_ when we have a first release on the
> : RELENG_5 (-STABLE) branch.  trb_at_?
> 
> First off, I'd like to say that's my understanding as well.

That was not my understanding at all.
 
> Having said that, let's not get overly anal about the rules here.
> There's still a great need to have current build on 4.x machines.
> This is a long standing range war between ruslan and david over how
> much compatibility should be there.  I do not want to see it play out
> in public again, but fear that it might.

How is this a war?  My elusion to "someone will probably patch the build
system to tolerate it" is that I expected that RU would add something to
-legacy or Makefile.inc1 so that the 5-CURRENT build worked 4.0.  I don't
believe anyone can infer I would get in "someone"'s way in doing this.
We even have a freshly bumped __FreeBSD_version (501100) that can be used
for this.


> I personally don't see that the addition of -std=gnu99 is enough of a
> win in -current to justify its painful addition and the issue of
> -stable compatibility is secondary to that.  It's been added 3 or 4
> times now and every time the world has broken on some architecture.
> That alone is reason to treat the change with some skeptism as to its
> correctness.

And the TRB hasn't even responded to my or DES's emails on the topic.
Note even a "hi, we got your message and will mull over it".

I (and another committer) had a agenda that DES's commit derailed and
I'll be damned if I'm going to let it stop me given the amount of crap
I've taken lately that has derailed every effort I've tried to make in
FreeBSD for the past 2 months.

-- 
-- David  (obrien_at_FreeBSD.org)