cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_tc.c src/sys/net rtsock.c src/sys/netipx ipx_proto.c src/sys/netnatm natm_proto.c

[Scott Long]

David O'Brien wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 10:29:16PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 7 Sep 2005, David E. O'Brien wrote:
>>
>>>Modified files:
>>>  sys/kern             kern_tc.c
>>>  sys/net              rtsock.c
>>>  sys/netipx           ipx_proto.c
>>>  sys/netnatm          natm_proto.c
>>>Log:
>>>Forward declaring static variables as extern is invalid ISO-C.  Now that
>>>GCC can properly handle forward static declarations, do this properly.
>>
>>As a result of this change, it is no longer possible to build 7.x kernels 
>>on 6.x worlds without building all of world or tweaking kernel makefiles. 
> 
> 
> We do not support building a HEAD kernel on a RELENG_ box.  Never have.
> That it usually works for you is just gravy.
> 
> The documented minimal steps to build a HEAD kernel is:
> 
> 	make kernel-toolchain
> 	make -DALWAYS_CHECK_MAKE buildkernel KERNCONF=YOUR_KERNEL_HERE
> 
> 
>>While that's not a formally supported configuration, it makes it a lot 
>>easier and faster to do development from a central buildbox on a farm of 
>>test systems.
> 
> 
> Building a HEAD kernel on RELENG_ isn't anywhere near a supported
> configuration.  I really don't know where you got the idea it was.  On a
> 6.0-beta2 machine I just did a HEAD 'make kernel-toolchain' - it took
> 3m53.49s and allowed me to build a HEAD kernel just fine.
> 

It might not be supported, but having it work helps people do work. 
Having it break for trivial reasons is frustrating and slows down
work.

> 
>>In the future, could you merge the gcc fixes to the relevant branches
>>before merging the dependent C changes, in order to avoid this sort of
>>thing?
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that is unreasonable to do in this case.  I'd be waiting an
> undetermined amount of time for RELENG_6 to thaw before I could do this
> work.

Alternatively, you could ask to MFC it to RELENG_6.  I would have 
happily said 'yes'.  I agree with Robert on this point.

> HEAD was already frozen for 1 months this year - you're
> effectively asking me to work as if is frozen for an additional 2 months.
> On top of that - the "relevant branches" is HEAD and only HEAD.  Which
> is where the GCC fixes were committed before depending on them.
> 
> Note that I did the RELENG_5 MFC for you personally, knowing you do try
> to build HEAD kernels on RELENG_*.  I would have MFC'ed to RELENG_6 for
> your benefit, but its frozen.  You are an RE - please feel free to MFC
> the bug fix.  I certainly would not mind. :-)
> 

David, you're shifting blame here, whatever little blame there is. 
Please be a good team player and ask to MFC the change to RELENG_6.

Scott