On 31.07.2017 16:23, Fam Zheng wrote: > On Sun, 07/30 19:23, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 30 July 2017 at 17:51, Kamil Rytarowski <n...@gmx.com> wrote: >>> On 29.07.2017 21:34, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> On 29 July 2017 at 14:50, Patrick Steinhardt <p...@pks.im> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:20:49PM -0300, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>>>> This is likely to break on BSD, but now than patchew has a NetBSD job >>>>>> you can trigger a build RESENDing this patch. >>>> >>> >>> I just checked patchew, and there is FreeBSD job. How far are we from >>> adding more BSDs? >> >> I now test OpenBSD and NetBSD as well in my pre-merge >> test setup. Patchew could add them as well if desired. >> (vm setup instructions at http://wiki.qemu.org/Hosts/BSD) > > No objection to adding more BSDs to patchew as long as I can find a few more > gigabytes RAM to run the VM (BTW I'm also thinking about converting long > running > VMs to boot/shutdown on demand, to support more types of guests). But still > want > to ask this: how likely it is for a patch to compile on one BSD flavor but > fail > on the other? >
High probability. These systems (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD) diverged over 20 years ago and are developed by different teams and for different use-cases. We should assume that these systems are completely different POSIX-like systems, with shared ancestors (AT&T UNIX -> BSD UNIX). Thought, DragonflyBSD & FreeBSD are relatively similar, FreeBSD fixes should work for DragonflyBSD in most cases. Right now there are no other modern BSDs with a vibrant community, everything else is retro-computing, remix with preconfigured desktop, hobby, 1-man-show etc. > Fam >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
