Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 23:54:08 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> Cc: powerpc@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Tinderbox <tinderbox@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [head tinderbox] failure on powerpc64/powerpc Message-ID: <86aaofpr7j.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <4C6F0813.9030007@freebsd.org> (Nathan Whitehorn's message of "Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:56:19 -0500") References: <201008190304.o7J34Wa4089466@freebsd-current.sentex.ca> <86occzdmhg.fsf@ds4.des.no> <4C6D557E.6080406@freebsd.org> <86sk29ws6u.fsf@ds4.des.no> <4C6E825C.5060509@freebsd.org> <86fwy9f5vj.fsf@ds4.des.no> <4C6F0813.9030007@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> writes: > I'm the first to admit that many of the config tricks involved in this > port, and GENERIC64, are ugly hacks, largely because config(8) was not > designed with such things in mind. It's not just "config tricks and ugly hacks", it also violates the assumption that target names are unique. > To address the immediate problem, I think the best solution is to use > the -m option to config to reject kernel configs for different > architectures, I'm not sure I understand what you mean (or rather, how it would help the tinderbox). What *would* help would be an easy way to determine, *before* trying to build it, whether a specific kernel config is appropriate for a specific target. Can you think of an easier way to do this than to scan the config for the "machine" line? DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86aaofpr7j.fsf>