Re: Retiring WITHOUT_CXX

> On Fri, Nov 26, 2021 at 09:09:54AM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > [ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> > > On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 04:09, Rodney W. Grimes
> > > <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So is the feature model of FreeBSD becoming, oh it gets broken
> > > > cause it is not regularly tested, so lets remove that feature.
> > > 
> > > I don't agree with that. We have a large and growing CI infrastructure
> > > to regularly test functionality and are continually adding to it over
> > > time. But it's important to test and maintain what is actually used
> > > and is useful. Disabling C++ support made sense when obrien@ added the
> > > original knob in 2000, but it makes less sense today when parts of
> > > FreeBSD are written in C++.
> > > 
> > 
> > You can disagree with my assertion, but I shall continue to assert
> > that it *seems* as if rather than adding B O S to the CI such that
> > it is not only regularly tested, but continuously tested is the
> > correct path forward here.   Removing an option that seems to
> > break due to not beeing tested (your original assertion) is not
> > only false (I pointed out, and do know for a fact that Michael
> > Dexter runs BOS on a very regulary basis, infact near continously.)
> > and the wrong path forward.
> > 
> > Fix the broken stuff, stop letting stuff rot because you don't care
> > to work on it, or because it is not being "tested".
> 
> This is a volunteer based project people are doing their best to try to fix
> broken stuff if
> 1/ they are aware of the issue
> 2/ if they are able to fix it.
> 
> The limit of a volunteer project is how much time everyone can dedicate to it.
> The more options we have and more complex it is to ensure that every
> combinations do work.

Every combination is not at issue here, what is at issue here is the
fact that single options if used get broken.  B O S catches these, that
is all.

> 
> It is interesting how much you are patronizing every one on what should be
> fixed and what should be done and how but you are actually doing nothing as an
> individual to help here, you can volunteer to fix things at your level you know?

Doing nothing,  Hum, ok, as usual you attacking the person, without
full knowledge of what a person may or may not do (you do NOT have
visibility into my world), Dexter would not even be running BOS had
I not spent time helping him getting it set up, and helping him get
the initial brokeness in a state that the fall out was an approachable
task.

> 
> This thread is about the usefulness of an option, and yet noone has demonstrated
> the usefulness of WITHOUT_CXX here in 2021.

Seems more false assertions, I do believe 2 people in the thread have
asserted that they a) use this option and b) find its function useful.

> 
> For any embedded systems the WITHOUT_* have never been enough and there are way
> to build a very very tiny viable FreeBSD image in an industrial manner which are
> way more efficient that the WITHOUT KNOBS. I am not saying we should stop
> providing those, just we should stop maintaining the one that makes no sense
> anymore or are very complicated to maintain.

Exists, is used, presently works.  Does it make sense to remove it?

> Best regards,
> Bapt

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes@freebsd.org