Re: git: e2650af157bc - main - Make CPU_SET macros compliant with other implementations

On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 4:22 AM Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> Am 31.12.21 um 09:01 schrieb Antoine Brodin:
> > On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 11:54 AM Stefan Eßer <se@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> The branch main has been updated by se:
> >>
> >> URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=e2650af157bc7489deaf2c9054995f0f88a6e5da
> >>
> >> commit e2650af157bc7489deaf2c9054995f0f88a6e5da
> >> Author:     Stefan Eßer <se@FreeBSD.org>
> >> AuthorDate: 2021-12-30 11:20:32 +0000
> >> Commit:     Stefan Eßer <se@FreeBSD.org>
> >> CommitDate: 2021-12-30 11:20:32 +0000
> >>
> [...]
> >>     Ports that have added -D_WITH_CPU_SET_T to build on -CURRENT do
> >>     no longer require that option.
> >>
> >>     The FreeBSD version has been bumped to 1400046 to reflect this
> >>     incompatible change.
> >>
> >>     Reviewed by:    kib
> >>     MFC after:      2 weeks
> >>     Relnotes:       yes
> >>     Differential Revision:  https://reviews.freebsd.org/D33451
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This breaks a lot of ports,  like  lang/python38.
> > Could these kinds of changes on public headers be tested with an
> > exp-run,  and reverted in the mean-time?
>
> I'm sorry for the breakage. The commit had the goal to lessen
> port build problems caused by the misled assumptions that the
> port was being built on a GLIBC based system.
>

Given that we've now iterated on this a couple of times, this likely
should have all been backed out and exp-run'd *way* sooner.

> In the case of the Python language ports, one additional macro
> was required and has been added in commit cb65d4432aed11.
>
> Since the official package builders have not been upgraded to
> a -CURRENT with this change, they are not affected. But I'll
> watch the failed build logs on beefy18.
>

This is a mindset that we all take, but we really need to work towards
improving. Once we're watching fallout logs on the official builders,
we've already lost. This is the kind of thing that helps promote the
idea that -CURRENT isn't stable enough for production uses: we start
accepting that we can be a little more lenient on identifying
ports-breaking changes because it's -CURRENT and we lose a fraction of
the ports tree because we've only sniped off individual ports as they
come up.

portmgr@ is able and willing to run exp-runs for changes like this, we
really need to take advantage of that to avoid this kind of follow-up.


>
> I'm not opposed to a revert and exp-run, but I'm convinced that
> any fall-out from this change is easily fixed, and I'm willing
> to quickly fix any ports or base system components affected.
>

That's probably not necessary at this point given that we're now N
commits deep into the cpuset.h/sched.h saga, but I really would have
liked to see us be more open to the idea.

Thanks,

Kyle Evans