Gavin Maltby wrote: > On 10/05/07 01:41, James C. McPherson wrote: >> Alexander Kolbasov wrote: >>> James, >> ... >>>> - do you have a plan to backport these changes to an >>>> S10 Update release? Should this be considered at all? >>> it could, definitely, be a possibility, although it is a bit strange >>> since it should not result in any patch produced, so the change is >>> strictly internal. This seems to be rather unusual candidate for a >>> back-port. >> >> >> That is true, but I reckon people doing backports >> to S10Update and RPE would all like to see much >> faster build times. I know I would, that's for sure! > > I don't believe you'll find the sustaining org, who owm the S10 > gates, will want any overhaul of the S10 Makefile structure > *even if* it halves buildtimes. There is now a standardized > build environment etc for S10 in an effort to stabilize > the build process, make it reproducable and so on and > juggling Makefiles is extremely difficult to quantify > in terms of risk (even if you can somehow prove the > changes correct you're still subject to make bugs, > speaking of which I think S10 still uses ParallelMake > instead of dmake). > > So for the sake of our customers, just throw hardware at > S10 builds for sustaining/RPE. It's much cheaper than > debugging some weird bugs that a Makefile reorg may bring.
As much as I'd like to see the changes go into an S10 update, I am very, very conscious that these have a system-wide effect and thus would probably not get a look-in. While the S10 build system is slow, it isn't broken. Although... perhaps if the changes demonstrated a 90%+ improvement in build times..... :-) cheers, James -- Senior Kernel Software Engineer, Solaris Sun Microsystems _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
