svn commit: r259010 - in head/sys: conf powerpc/fpu

[Dag-Erling Smørgrav]

John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at des.no> writes:
> > John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> writes:
> > > LINT64 is yet another kernel config covered by 'make tinderbox',
> > > but not by the periodic tinderbox.  It is probably worth adding to
> > > the periodic tinderbox (someday it'd be nice if the two
> > > tinderboxes built the same set of things).
> > Some day it would be nice if people talked to me directly instead of
> > sniping from the sidelines.
> Ah, but when people have raised this exact issue before (that tcbuild
> and 'make tinderbox' build different things), you have blown them off
> repeatedly.

I have no idea what tcbuild is.

I blow people off when they complain that the tinderbox doesn't work
exactly like 'make tinderbox' because it's not intended to.

> > Oh, and 'make tinderbox' should die.
> No, it is very developer friendly as it Just Works(tm) as a single
> command from an existing source tree checkout.

We already had 'make universe'.

The story behind 'make tinderbox' is that Alfred threw a fit over a
tinderbox breakage and insisted, despite being provided with ample proof
to the contrary, that my tinderbox was a black box which nobody knew how
worked and nobody could reproduce and that tinderbox reports were
therefore worthless.  He then proceeded to implement 'make tinderbox'
purely to piss me off.  It serves no other purpose and needs to die.

> It also happens to build more of the tree than the periodic tinderbox
> (by building more kernel configs, albeit doing quite a bit of
> duplicate work for platforms like arm in the process).

That's simply not true.  The tinderbox builds exactly the same kernels
as 'make tinderbox' if they're present.  The issue here is that a bug in
the source tree prevents some of these kernel configurations from being
generated, hence the tinderbox cannot build them.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des at des.no