Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 13:54:14 +0300 (MSK) From: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> To: Wilko Bulte <wb@freebie.xs4all.nl> Cc: stable@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, sparc64@freebsd.org, kris@obsecurity.org, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: [releng_6 tinderbox] failure on sparc64/sparc64 Message-ID: <20060204135216.P84050@woozle.rinet.ru> In-Reply-To: <20060204092225.GB46310@freebie.xs4all.nl> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Wilko Bulte wrote: [snip] WB> > My point is that it is unreasonable to get bitched at for tinerbox WB> > breakages that don't show up when building lint because the tinderbox WB> > person is too stubborn to not use non-standard flags. WB> WB> I would think that the tinderboxes should run 100% the same flags as WB> what normal release builds use. Nothing more, nothing less. Well, why not take the portbuild approach then? Build standard tinderboxen with standard source and compile flags set, and *also* experimental sets with experimental flags and possibly experimental source patches... Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060204135216.P84050>