On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 04:43:33AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Sat, May 11, 2002 at 10:33:03AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > > > I'll look this patch over carefully, but at first glance it all seems > > > like stylistic changes. Does it fix a bug, or you just don't like how I > > > did things? > > > > The changes are mostly _not_ stylistic like .ORDER with one argument > > not making any sense. The reason of this patch is as before -- to > > avoid redefining system Yacc building rules. The changes also fix > > the -j buildworld breakage in gnu/usr.bin/cc/cc1plus: > > Maybe they are "cleaner" to you -- but the YACC rules for GCC are rather > complicated and what I use is much more direct. You way requires me to > remember the 3-4 different ways the YACC _implicit_ rules can affect the > build. I feel that for every except you (and maybe BDE) the explicit > rules are clearer and more straight forward. I do not see anything wrong > with redefining system implicit YACC rules. > They are not wrong, they are just redundant for most of the part. My changes tell how to build FreeBSD versions of YACC input (.y) files, and how to build FreeBSD versions of YACC output (.c and .h) files. This is only different from your version by letting sys.mk rules run yacc(1), in one well defined way. These changes also resemble those that were before your WIP_GCC31 merge, and for which you already agreed by committing them. Not to say they fix a real bug in the -j case and fix CLEANFILES.
> You have repeatedly hounded me for quite a while about GCC. Since so > much of my blood and sweat are not acceptable to you, I encourage you to > become the GCC maintainer and do everything to your heart's desire. > Sorry I was working on cross-platform building issues in the past that also needed some changes in GCC and Binutils. Sorry I sent you too many patches which fixed bugs or added features. Sorry you can't hold an exclusive lock on the whole FreeBSD. Is this really your sight at things? I'm amazed. What you call "hounding" would better be classified as a pure technical feedback including patches and asking related questions, and maintainer is excepted to deal with this load, either accepting patches or rejecting them (giving valid technical reasons). If you aren't capable of accepting useful "critics" (in the form of patches and answering questions), I think you should seriously reconsider whether you really want to continue be a MAINTAINER. (I say "critics" because that's how you probably take what I call "feedback".) > People are really making me regret that I sweated over GCC 3 to bring it > into our tree for all of our architectures and to get many serious bugs > fixed in the FSF CVS repository. > What reward do you need for this? So that nobody reviews your commits, or looks to anything you are maintaining? You want the "god mode" in FreeBSD? Sorry but I'm affraid this is not possible, or FreeBSD should be renamed to ObrienBSD. GCC and Binutils are essential part of FreeBSD, sitting in its heart, and many other folks including me work on related issues, and apparently look to the work you're doing. From my first days in the project, I took it as a joint effort thing, in fact that's one of the reasons I agreed to become a committer, but behavior like you are demonstrating doesn't fold into this. What you don't seem to realize is that people like me and BDE _don't_ blame you but are just trying to help you do the work done. It's a real pita you see the things in a different light. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
Description: PGP signature