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

David O'Brien obrien at
Sun Sep 11 19:16:10 PDT 2005

On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 07:53:07PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> David O'Brien wrote:
> >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.

Getting HEAD ready for GCC 4.x isn't a trivial tastk.  This was all part
of doing that.
> >>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.

I wont get into a public debate about this - as has been expressed by
others the MFC request process doesn't always run smoothly.

MFC'ing something to RELENG_* isn't a requirement to progress on HEAD.
If this was, we'd never be able to rev the toolchain.  I don't believe
those that insist on building HEAD kernels with a non-HEAD userland have
been thru a large compiler upgrade (a.out->2.7->EGCS->2.95->3.x).
Otherwise it would be clear that you simply cannot depend on building
HEAD code with an old compiler.
> >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. 

The blame is that someone is trying to hold blame on me for advancing

> Please be a good team player and ask to MFC the change to RELENG_6.

No.  RE owns the branch - RE is free to MFC things they feel important to
have in the release.  You guys are experienced professionals and don't
need my permission to MFC something RE wants in 6.0-R.  In the past I've
had multiple bad experience tired of begging to MFC things and then
having to send at times multiple begging followup emails to get a
response.  If I don't feel very strongly about something, I don't bother
anymore trying to MFC it during a code RELENG_* freeze.

-- David  (obrien at

More information about the cvs-src mailing list