On 03/03/11 15:14, Scott Long wrote:
On Mar 3, 2011, at 12:32 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:22:44 pm Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
On 03/03/11 11:09, John Baldwin wrote:
On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 11:06:57 am Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
Author: nwhitehorn
Date: Wed Mar 2 16:06:57 2011
New Revision: 219181
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/219181
Log:
Add additional release makefile for bsdinstall-based media, along with
support files. This does not change the default behavior of anything.
To make bsdinstall-based media, pre-build world and GENERIC, then run
the release target in Makefile.bsdinstall.
Are you planning on keeping the current 'make release' behavior of building a
full chroot and doing a clean build in the chroot to build a release? That
is, is 'Makefile.bsdinstall' just a temporary shortcut for building test
releases or is that the final replacement for 'release/Makefile'?
It was intended (modulo memstick building, docs, and some miscellaneous
cleanup) to be the final replacement for release/Makefile. In my
experience, the automatic fetching, clean build, and chroot was a major
impediment to easily making installation media for users to test
patches. I figured that if people (e.g. re@) really want a totally clean
tree, checking one out by hand and building from there didn't seem like
an enormous obstacle.
If you think it's a really important feature, I'm happy to add it back,
however.
I think it is a very important feature to ensure release builds are not
polluted by local changes in /etc/src.conf, etc. I think it would be good
to support both models perhaps, but for our official release builds I think
we need the clean environment. I certainly use 'make release' now for my
own custom FooBSD builds to get a clean environment.
Agreed entirely. I'd consider it a major bug if the insulated release
environment went away, especially since I'm switching release building at Yahoo
to use it. There are plenty of shortcuts available in the script to reduce the
time overhead for quick turnaround testing.
To me, there's a distinction between "release building" and "make
bootable media", and I like the suggestion to support both. One option
would be that we keep the "make cdrom" target as is, but add
dependencies, and then have a "release" target that actually the chroot
setup. Another would be to keep the Makefile as-is, but to add a shell
script that does the version control checkout, building, chroot setup,
etc., etc. Would you have a preference there?
-Nathan
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
