From nobody Fri Nov 26 09:09:21 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 305C118A45AA for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:09:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4J0ppd5KFnz3FfY; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 09:09:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 1AQ99Le6023878; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 01:09:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 1AQ99LY2023877; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 01:09:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <202111260909.1AQ99LY2023877@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX In-Reply-To: To: Ed Maste Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 01:09:21 -0800 (PST) CC: FreeBSD Hackers X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] List-Id: Technical discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-hackers List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4J0ppd5KFnz3FfY X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N > Several base system components are written in C++, and the WITHOUT_CXX > option is not regularly tested and is often broken. I fixed a number That is not a true statement, the WITHOUT_CXX option is regularly tested, as that is why Michael Dexter has reported that it is broken, as he *regularly* runs the Build Option Survey. > of WITHOUT_CXX issues in response to Michael Dexter's recent Build > Option Survey runs, but it will break again absent ongoing effort. > This does not seem like a useful endeavour given the limitations it > imposes on the resulting system. > > I'm proposing we remove the WITHOUT_CXX option and have opened a > review to do so: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D33108 So is the feature model of FreeBSD becoming, oh it gets broken cause it is not regularly tested, so lets remove that feature. This seams to becoming more and more the norm. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org