On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:50 AM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote:
... > This sounds like a superior approach. It doesn't break any current use > cases while giving the ability to build multiple programs in the few > places that need it. It sounds like there are a few places under gnu/ > from Garrett's reply that might be able to make use of this as well. For the record, gnu/cc/cc_tools/Makefile is where I first spotted a potential "bsd.progs.mk" candidate. Most of the other code doesn't care given how things are organized in our source tree. > BTW, one general comment. There seem to be two completely independent > groups of folks working on ATF (e.g. there have been two different > imports of ATF into the tree in two different locations IIRC, and now > we have two different sets of patches to our system makefiles). > > Are these two groups talking to each other at all? I know in May that > many folks (certainly multiple vendors) are interested in ATF, and it > seems that both Juniper and Isilon have ported ATF internally. It seems > that it might be good for the two groups to work together to avoid > stomping on each other's toes. It seems there are some differences in > the two approaches that merit working out to avoid a lot of wasted > effort on both sides. Both parties (Isilon/Juniper) are converging on the ATF porting work that Giorgos/myself have done after talking at the FreeBSD Foundation meet-n-greet. I have contributed all of the patches that I have other to marcel for feedback. > Do we already have a freebsd-atf@ mailing list? If not, perhaps we > should create one and start these discussions there? Probably wouldn't be a bad idea as I'm currently suspended a bit waiting on feedback for how to proceed; too bad freebsd-test is being used for other things :).. Thanks! -Garrett _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
