From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 17 13:11:33 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DADD216A401; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:11:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chat95@mac.com) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (smtpout.mac.com [17.250.248.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76AED43D49; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:11:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chat95@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (smtpin02-en2 [10.13.10.147]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/8.12.11/smtpout08/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id k2HDBWtW019330; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:11:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (221x241x85x136.ap221.ftth.ucom.ne.jp [221.241.85.136]) (authenticated bits=0) by mac.com (Xserve/smtpin02/MantshX 4.0) with ESMTP id k2HDBSdr017159; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:11:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:11:27 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20060317.221127.41627417.chat95@mac.com> To: ade@freebsd.org From: NAKATA Maho In-Reply-To: <9E058426-CEDE-4090-B6DD-920722C3F1D1@FreeBSD.org> References: <4418A188.8060200@gmx.de> <9E058426-CEDE-4090-B6DD-920722C3F1D1@FreeBSD.org> Organization: private X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de, gerald@pfeifer.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lang/gcc41 - libjava X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:11:33 -0000 In Message-ID: <9E058426-CEDE-4090-B6DD-920722C3F1D1@FreeBSD.org> Ade Lovett wrote: > I'm looking this one over and thinking about it. Right now, weighing > the benefits (fixing 1, maybe 2 ports) against the obvious > infrastructure issues that having two gmake ports in the tree, I'm > currently of the opinion that it's not really a good solution. > A considerably more preferable approach would be to put pressure on > the gmake folks to get a new release pushed out, with these and other > fixes, which can then be set up for an -exp run, and if successful, > devel/gmake simply gets punted to a new version where everyone is happy. gmake-devel port is now RC stage: make-3.81rc1.tar.bz2, and IMHO we need some time to do extensive tests by changing (just illustrate how we test) /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk .if defined(USE_GMAKE) BUILD_DEPENDS+= gmake:${PORTSDIR}/devel/gmake CONFIGURE_ENV+= MAKE=${GMAKE} .endif -> .if defined(USE_GMAKE) BUILD_DEPENDS+= gmake-devel:${PORTSDIR}/devel/gmake-devel CONFIGURE_ENV+= MAKE=gmake-devel .endif so my opinion is: committing gmake-devel saves at least gcc-4.1 with java, and OpenOffice.org port. In terms of release enginnering, we can test easily, even by casual committer like me, not by Kris. if everthing is okay we can put the new version. BTW: time stamp at gnu.org of make-3.80.tar.bz2 2002/10/04 00:00:00 three years have passed since it it released, so I'm quite sure there are a lot of brekage with make-3.81. IMHO we need both make for a while. All the best, -- NAKATA, Maho (maho@FreeBSD.org)