Modularization development notes [was Re: RFA sent to the ArchWG]

[Kevin E Martin]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 11:46:19PM +0200, Matthieu Herrb wrote:
> Kevin E Martin wrote:
> 
> >
> >Platform support
> >----------------
> 
> >- OpenBSD (AMD64, IA-32)
> 
> I should be able to test on other OpenBSD arhitectures: macppc, sparc64, 
> alpha if the auto-tooling process doesn't break too many things for the 
> main architectures.

Thanks Matthieu!

> >Autotooling the modules
> >-----------------------
> 
> >
> >Other comments/suggestions? [***]
> 
> I agree with Alan that a document listing the features that will be 
> tested by autoconf, and how they'll be tested needs to be written and 
> validated before the converions begins. Clarifying the minimum supported 
> platform would be good too.

Yes.  I just clarified my statement in my reply to Alan's e-mail.  I
definitely think we should document the minimum platform requirements.
I'm just worried changing them in any significant way might cause
problems for people who are not yet ready to move to the modular tree
and must stick with the 6.9 monolithic release a little while longer.

> Otherwise I still re-iterate my concerns that the modularized tree 
> should not depend on GPL licenced tools more than necessary. Please 
> don't let gnu make or gnu m4 only construct leak in X.Org. OpenBSD (and 
> NetBSD if I understand correctly) want to be able to build X using only 
> the base system, which doesn't include the gnu version of these tools.

I think this is a good goal for everyone to keep in mind.  All of the
platforms I use are based on the gnu tools, so it will be difficult for
me to enforce.  However, I encourage you (and others) to bring this
issue up any time that you find a problem so that we can figure out if
there is another method to handle the situation with non-gnu specific
tools.