On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Brett Wilson <bre...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Brett Wilson<bre...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Dean McNamee<de...@chromium.org> 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
>
>
I like this idea too.
-Darin
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
