Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:01:42 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Darren Reed <darrenr@hub.freebsd.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: LINT broken due to ipfilter Message-ID: <427108E6.4010202@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20050428155451.GA2192@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20050428025836.E1ED67306E@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <20050428145519.GB92579@ip.net.ua> <4270FB26.50805@samsco.org> <20050428152622.GC92579@ip.net.ua> <427100CC.8080604@samsco.org> <20050428155451.GA2192@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Darren Reed wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 09:27:08AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > >>Leaving the tree unbuildable for 3 days is unacceptable. I doubt that >>any other active OSS project would tolerate it, and I'm sure that Sun >>wouldn't tolerate it either. > > > Well, FreeBSD seems to have a history of allowing this...I seem to recall > some other part of the build being broken when I did the initial commit > for ipf...not to mention there being many times in the past when I've seen > comments about the build being broken in one way or another. Blaming this botch on someone else isn't acceptable either. To my recollection, you have not done a successfull ipfilter import in at least two years. Yes, we all appreciate your contribution with IPFilter, but it's also disruptive, this time especially. > > ...and to compare it with Sun...there's one build command (equivalent of > building userland + kernel bits) that you have to submit with your request > to integrate. But to compare the effort I can spend there vs here, well, > this gets whatever time I have available, which maybe 1 or 4 or any number > of hours or minutes inbetween, plus it is upto me to provide my own > resources. You can't compare doing development work that you get paid for > with that you do in your own free time, at your own expense. Anyone who > thinks you can is sadly mistaken. All of us have varying levels of time > we can put into the project and I'm sure we all put it as much effort as > we can, given all the other constraints and requirements. > > My single biggest issue remains the number of boxes needed to keep things > compiling on FreeBSD. 4.11, 5.4, -current. That is a really tough ask > on anyone and last I checked, there's only a ref4 and a ref5. > > So....if you want to make it easier for people like me to make sure they > haven't broken the build, put a target in src/Makefile that achieves this. > That is, buildworld and buildkernel and build LINT and whatever else for > a single platform. Or at least I think buildworld and buildkernel are > required, seperately. "universe" is too much. 'make universe' is the command. And given that you still have build problems on 64-bit machines, this command is not 'too much'. There are fast freebsd.org machines that can run this. If you don't know, then please ask. > > Having said all that, I appreciate any assistance others can give, > especially clues on what to do with rescue. Ruslan already replied with a patch several hours ago. But yes, many thanks to Ruslan and Giorgos for working on this. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?427108E6.4010202>