From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 4 18:42:29 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stable@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DBE416A420; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 18:42:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) Received: from ns1.feral.com (ns1.feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9DB43D49; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 18:42:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) Received: from ns1.feral.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ns1.feral.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k14IgBLo088475; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:42:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) Received: from localhost (mjacob@localhost) by ns1.feral.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) with ESMTP id k14Ig8Fj088472; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:42:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mj@feral.com) X-Authentication-Warning: ns1.feral.com: mjacob owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:42:08 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob X-X-Sender: mjacob@ns1.feral.com To: Wilko Bulte In-Reply-To: <20060204092225.GB46310@freebie.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: <20060204103132.D88429@ns1.feral.com> References: <861wykr9vx.fsf@xps.des.no> <20060203.105305.71186162.imp@bsdimp.com> <43E4142A.4@samsco.org> <20060203.215549.74746986.imp@bsdimp.com> <20060204092225.GB46310@freebie.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, harti@FreeBSD.org, sparc64@FreeBSD.org, stable@FreeBSD.org, kris@obsecurity.org, des@des.no Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Matthew Jacob List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 18:42:29 -0000 > > I would think that the tinderboxes should run 100% the same flags as > what normal release builds use. Nothing more, nothing less. What I would like to see is a pointer to a procedure and tools to make sure builds aren't broken. I've been refreshing my memory about email going back about 5 years, and at that time there was a lot of wrangle over people not doing adequate checking for at least syntactic correctness for multiple platforms. I certainly have broken a lot more than I would like lately, and part of this (other than being too stupid and hasty) came about because it wasn't actually obvious what would be a good pre-commit compile check for kernels for me to follow. At the very least I've now come up with: compile GENERIC (easy enough to do) compile LINT (this wasn't obvious how to make LINT) compile PAE (for i386 at least) Since the complaint of 5 years ago by many was that they didn't have alphas to compile on is still relatively true (that is, few people have more than one architecture) has been addressed in two ways (tinderbox, and cross-compilers), the issue should be better, but for three things I've observed: a) The tinderbox breakage is being treated as bad as stop ship type of bug rather than being informative as it should be. I feel I got roasted and slammed for what should have been simply a "hey- Matt- come fix this please!". b) It's instantly not obvious to me (being lazy and not having kept all my committer mail in a way I can find) how *I* can do a tinderbox run myself. c) Similarily, I don't know how to build a cross-build environment. I should, and I bet if grovel around a bit I can find out how to do so. The point here is that if well-meaning and moderately intelligent committers miss steps that are important to keeping the quality up, please point them at documentation that gives a reasonably coherent set of steps as to how to correct their errors. I'm sure that most of those who err will spend the extra late night hours to get it right then.