christos@ wrote: > On Aug 1, 8:23pm, tsut...@ceres.dti.ne.jp (Izumi Tsutsui) wrote: > -- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/sparc > > | I agree you can blame port masters if they leave their ports broken > | more than *weeks*. > > Fine, let's create an SLA then. Without an SLA, people don't know > what's to be expected.
We already have Tier definitions. In Tier II: >> ... keeping it working is the responsibility of the user community. : >> If the port is not working at release time, a release is done >> without the port and the port is moved down to the life support tier. In Tier III: >> Organic ports get moved here if they do not complete a build for >> 6 months or are otherwise suspected to be broken. Tier was introduced to reduce extra work for developers working on Tier I ports. If these are not enough for you, what's better? > | But tier II ports are not primary even for their users and > | few people check status everyday. > | No chance to notice breakage without heads up about MI changes. > > It is simple enough to arrange to be notified about autobuild failures. All Tier II ports would have few MD new features, so they don't need *daily* checks. That's the point. We can split autobuild script into Tier I/II ones if people just want "0 failure" in daily buidable status. > | If you claim port-masters must check buildable state *everyday* > | against all MI changes without review or announcement, I'll resign > | from all maintainership. > > No, read above. See above. I'm afraid automated daily notifies which won't stop until "real fix" are too annoying. If it's sent ~bi-weelky like our gnats, it's fine for me. > | Ok, but why should it be defined in MI sys/conf/Makefile.kern.inc? > | > | Isn't it enought to define it per port (only tier I ports for example), > | or per kernel config file for debug purpose? > > Ideally we want to fix all the code ASAP. If we have enough man power to make it possible? But unfortunately we also need reasonable compromise and I think that's the what the Tier system intended. > | > | For sparc, the correct place seems in sparc/autoconf.c:bootstrap(). > | > | For sun2 it's sun2/locore2.c:_bootstrap(). > | > | Most other m68k ports foo_init() for pre-main initialization. > | > > | > It would be nice if the individual port-masters would proactively > | > check their ports so that they would remain buildable, and people > | > who have cross-port knowledge like you, would work to harmonize > | > these disparate and undocumented interfaces. > | > | It would be nice if you guys asked proper persons to fix their ports > | before you did try it yourself, so you don't have to check undocumented > | MD kludges. > | > | IMO "buildable but non-bootable state" is worse than non buildable. > | It just hides actual problems and makes late debug harder. > > It is not "you guys", it is just my fault. I don't know who you consider > co-responsible. As far as that goes, I will agree. I definitely seem to > have stirred the waters enough for the fix to be applied sooner than later, > but this is not the way to operate. I meant matt@, who committed the initial -fno-common change. I don't know if it was done by Core's decision or not. --- Izumi Tsutsui