svn commit: r185499 - head

[Alfred Perlstein]

* M. Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> [081201 21:12] wrote:
> In message: <20081201132554.GD27096 at elvis.mu.org>
>             Alfred Perlstein <alfred at FreeBSD.org> writes:
> : * Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des at des.no> [081201 03:25] wrote:
> : > Tim Kientzle <kientzle at freebsd.org> writes:
> : > > Alfred Perlstein <alfred at freebsd.org> writes:
> : > > > Log:
> : > > >   Provide a 'tinderbox' target that compiles enough of FreeBSD that
> : > > >   a developer can rest reasonably assured that the tinderbox will not
> : > > >   be broken.  This target leverages most of 'universe' but will exit
> : > > >   non-zero and output a summary at the end.
> : > > >     "make tinderbox"
> : > > Excellent!
> : > 
> : > I really don't see the point, especially now that 'make universe' will
> : > issue a warning on stdout for every build that fails.  As I've tried to
> : > explain to Alfred, the tinderbox does nothing magical, and nothing that
> : > isn't already covered by 'make universe'.  I also asked him to discuss
> : > any changes with Poul-Henning before committing them.
> : 
> : I'll summarize the changes here:
> : 
> : Problems with make universe:
> :   1) Make universe returns success on failure.
> :   2) Make universe outputs the following on failure:
> :     --------------------------------------------------------------
> :     make universe completed on `LC_ALL=C date`"
> :                        (started ${STARTTIME})"
> :     --------------------------------------------------------------
> : 
> : This basically means you can't chain 'make universe' into something
> : like "make tinderbox || (echo oops | mail -s tinderbox failed...)".
> : 
> : The summary at the end "completed" is very misleading.
> : 
> : The tinderbox target differs as follows:
> : 
> :   It returns an error if it fails.
> :   It outputs a summary of the failures at the end.
> :   The name reflects what its for. ("what the heck is a universe?")
> : 
> : 
> : If you strongly believe that a target should return "true" on failure
> : and/or output "i worked" on failure then I'm not sure how to approach
> : that mindset, maybe you can help me understand where you're coming from
> : on that?  Where is the utility in it?  Is there something I'm missing?
> 
> I think you ignored the discussions that said that 'universe' should
> be modified to exit with an error when there was an error, but
> shouldn't bail out EARLY.  There were even patches to do this.

Interesting, I didn't see them and they weren't committed.

The owner/maintainer of universe hasn't really stepped up to
provide anything and ask me "hey Alfred, would this be helpful?"
and the owner/maintainer of tinderbox has not either.

Mostly the two of them have told me "you do it, or shut up", so I
did it.

> Based on that, why do something completely new and different?

New and different?  What?

Maybe you can explain to me what's so earth shattering new and
different about having a make target behave like most any other
sane make target and have a name that is self-documenting?

There is a 'tinderbox' target, which is named so that when someone
says "gee, I wonder how to satisfy the tinderbox" they do not need
to read a wiki, blog, handbook, manpage, check IRC, news group
or mailing list archive to figure out, they can just run it and
get something that makes sense.

Anyhow, I don't really care what's done so as long as there's a 
top level target that does what I just committed, so if someone wants
to redo how I did what I did in order to get the exact same results
they can be my guest.

I would hope that they have better things to do though.

-- 
- Alfred Perlstein