On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 05:46:00PM -0400, Ed Maste wrote: > All that said, I'd really like to be able to continue building head on > RELENG_6. (In my case I have a rather fast RELENG_6 box so I have been > doing my pre-commit testing there.) Do the changes we're discussing > here involve anything that makes that difficult? Possibly. :-) It depends on whether your RELENG_6 box is up-to-date with respect to the RELENG_6 branch. I think that as current diverges more from 7 it will be harder to keep the tree building on 6. This all stems from the fact that our build process is very attached to wanting to bootstrap itself rather than having a set of build tools that would be updated independently of the buildworld. This is also the thing that makes it difficult for us to build embedded systems. I think I'd like to see us have a separate build tools build. :-) And then just point our buildworld to that tool set. That would help decouple our buildworld from being hosted on a FreeBSD system (which seems to be an issue for some companies with build server arrays that aren't FreeBSD). Doing that would also help decouple us from limiting what versions of FreeBSD we update from (or are compatible for update from). I'm not sure I want to tie the DTrace build support into the whole "let's revise our build system" argument. -- John BirrellReceived on Mon Jun 23 2008 - 20:41:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:32 UTC