On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Brett Wilson<[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Dean McNamee<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I kinda feel like this is one of those things you can try hard to >> premeditate, but in the end you'll just have to deal with it being >> ugly for a while and hope it eventually converges to something better. > > The changes in the bulk of the Chrome code are pretty easy to tell in > advance. Just search for OS_LINUX. It would be nice if the first pass > didn't just tack on OS_FREEBSD to every OS_LINUX in chrome, especially > since I think there's a good chance it won't be maintained > longer-term. I definitely believe you that there will be a bunch of > unknown build/third_party stuff. > >> Sort of a non-answer, but I'd be happy to see this running on a BSD >> first, and then we can argue about the patch. > > Are you suggesting getting it running before checking anything in? I > think BenL's was planning to do it piecemeal.
Here's an idea I like: Do a pass of porting "base" and "chrome/browser/renderer_host", which are some of the key infrastructure bits that have a bunch of platform-specific stuff in them. It doesn't have to be "everything is working perfectly," but rather do a patch to modify the ifdefs as best as you can figure out. Then we can discuss in concrete terms how the ifdefs in the code look and whether they're OK or need rearchitecting. This wouldn't need to block the current build patch, but I think should be done before committing ifdefs to the code. Brett --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
