Re: Rump dependencies (5.2)?

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost> writes:

>> The rump build is done with separate reachover makefiles.  [...]
>
> Hm.  Then I think possibly the right answer for the moment is for me to
> excise rump from my tree entirely.  I can't recall ever wanting its
> functionality, and trying to figure out what the dependency graph is
> when it exists only implicitly in Makefiles scattered all over the tree
> sounds like a recipe for serious headaches.
>
> If and when it looks worth the effort, I can always back out the
> removal commit and clean up the result.  But SCM_MEMORY looks like the
> more valuable thing for my use cases for the moment.

Your tree, your call.  But it seems really obvious that you should fix
the rump build and write some atf test cases for your SCM_MEMORY stuff,
and then you will be able to test it automatically.