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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | > | 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. christos
