Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 13 Mar 2011 22:45:10 -0500
From:      Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org>
Cc:        Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org>, Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org>
Subject:   Re: [HEADS UP] GNU make 3.82
Message-ID:  <889C01A0-3193-4E41-9549-6D8423ED2322@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110313212727.GB5392@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
References:  <488C7790-D3E2-4441-BEC8-DD26D8917181@freebsd.org> <4D792578.6000303@FreeBSD.org> <2B21F26B-D7EA-480B-BFA2-BD12DDDB7721@FreeBSD.org> <4D7932AC.1020508@FreeBSD.org> <883EDE8E-309A-497B-A9ED-2350AC1D2546@FreeBSD.org> <20110310235432.GA11144@lonesome.com> <4D796857.1020305@FreeBSD.org> <1150BA48-1B1D-4C8E-9059-ADF5CE2C494C@FreeBSD.org> <20110313212727.GB5392@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Mar 13, 2011, at 16:27 , Peter Jeremy wrote:
> Having read through this thread, it is still unclear to me why it is
> not possible to fix up the problematic ports before importing gmake
> 3.82, removing the need for a gmake381 port.

I believe Mark has offered up, on multiple occasions a wiki page from =
the _first_ exp run.

Of course, if port "A" fails as a result of gmake (or, quite frankly, =
whatever), and it has dependent ports, then unti such time as the =
proverbial "quick hack" to unbreak it, we have absolutely no idea of the =
carnage further down the tree.

devel/gmake381 exists for one reason, and one reason only.  To allow =
-exp runs to fully test what breaks, and what doesn't with a devel/gmake =
being 3.82.  You'll notice that it is not attached to the build (in =
devel/Makefile) and it is also marked IGNORE.  Using a few extra inodes =
in order to be able to properly test things (you should also note that =
USE_GMAKE=3D381 is merely part of an -exp patchset, and not present in =
the existing Mk/bsd.port.mk) is a minor cost for substantial gains when =
actually running said -exp runs.

Could this have been handled better.  Sure, maybe.  But it would require =
*proactive* work within the community as opposed to the "you're doing it =
wrong" *reactive* mentality.  It's easy to criticize.  Much harder to do =
work that affects thousand of ports and, in the best case, no-one =
actually sees a change.

-aDe




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?889C01A0-3193-4E41-9549-6D8423ED2322>