Re: [head tinderbox] failure on powerpc64/powerpc

On 08/21/10 16:54, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Nathan Whitehorn<nwhitehorn_at_freebsd.org>  writes:
>    
>> I'm the first to admit that many of the config tricks involved in this
>> port, and GENERIC64, are ugly hacks, largely because config(8) was not
>> designed with such things in mind.
>>      
> It's not just "config tricks and ugly hacks", it also violates the
> assumption that target names are unique.
>    
This was discussed on arch several months ago. Breaking that assumption 
seems much better, in the long term, than any of the alternatives in 
order to accomodate mips[64][el|eb], arm[eb], powerpc[64], and any other 
similar situations we may run into in the future. Sharing an 
include/machine directory, which is a side effect, also means that 
things like cc -m32 work out of the box.
>> To address the immediate problem, I think the best solution is to use
>> the -m option to config to reject kernel configs for different
>> architectures,
>>      
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean (or rather, how it would help
> the tinderbox).  What *would* help would be an easy way to determine,
> *before* trying to build it, whether a specific kernel config is
> appropriate for a specific target.  Can you think of an easier way to do
> this than to scan the config for the "machine" line?
>    
That's exactly what I proposed. You use config, before trying the build, 
to look up the machine specification for the config file. I sent you a 5 
line patch to tinderbox.pl that does this by private email. Other 
alternatives would be having sys/$MACHINE/conf.$MACHINE_ARCH directories 
or something, but that invites far more breakage.
-Nathan