Fwd: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program

[Garrett Cooper]

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:50 AM, John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> wrote:

...

> This sounds like a superior approach.  It doesn't break any current use
> cases while giving the ability to build multiple programs in the few
> places that need it.  It sounds like there are a few places under gnu/
> from Garrett's reply that might be able to make use of this as well.

For the record, gnu/cc/cc_tools/Makefile is where I first spotted a
potential "bsd.progs.mk" candidate. Most of the other code doesn't
care given how things are organized in our source tree.

> BTW, one general comment.  There seem to be two completely independent
> groups of folks working on ATF (e.g. there have been two different
> imports of ATF into the tree in two different locations IIRC, and now
> we have two different sets of patches to our system makefiles).
>
> Are these two groups talking to each other at all?  I know in May that
> many folks (certainly multiple vendors) are interested in ATF, and it
> seems that both Juniper and Isilon have ported ATF internally.  It seems
> that it might be good for the two groups to work together to avoid
> stomping on each other's toes.  It seems there are some differences in
> the two approaches that merit working out to avoid a lot of wasted
> effort on both sides.

Both parties (Isilon/Juniper) are converging on the ATF porting work
that Giorgos/myself have done after talking at the FreeBSD Foundation
meet-n-greet. I have contributed all of the patches that I have other
to marcel for feedback.

> Do we already have a freebsd-atf@ mailing list?  If not, perhaps we
> should create one and start these discussions there?

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea as I'm currently suspended a bit
waiting on feedback for how to proceed; too bad freebsd-test is being
used for other things :)..

Thanks!
-Garrett