Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 10:19:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb> To: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, nate@sri.MT.net, phk@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: tcl -- what's going on here. Message-ID: <199606191719.KAA01800@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <199606191656.KAA06240@rocky.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Jun 19, 96 10:56:31 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams wrote:
>
> Jonathan M. Bresler writes:
> > Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > >
> > > you've come up with some way of eliminating the bmake-munging process
> > > for ports like gcc and groff, I'd suggest you just let the man finish
> > > what he started and admit to yourself that you've got no better plan
> > > of your own to offer ("stay right where we are" being an option only
> > > to those who don't have to do the bmake integration work every time :-).
> >
> > Jordan, Poul,
> >
> > bmake'ing tcl, gcc, groff, etc...every time a new version comes
> > out is a real pain. so is having a monster like this in the
> > cvs tree.
> >
> > bmake'ing gmake and having gmake a prerequisite for these other
> > GNU components is ugly (two make programs: gmake and bmake) but
> > avoids both problems.
>
> Actually no. Bmake should be able to handle building these programs, so
> it's not an issue of 'just building it' IMHO.
from what jordan wrote, it seems that bmak'ing these programs is
an arduous task that no one is eager to take on. at least some of
those that have been doing it are tiring of the process.
using gmake for them would reduce the burden of porting these
programs.
> > workable? acceptable?
>
> We're trying to *avoid* adding GPL'd components to the tree, and if we
> use Gmake we make the tree unusable for anyone trying to use FreeBSD for
> 'other' purposes, which is one of the tenets ofthe BSD vs. GPL licensing
> scheme.
for now we are stuck with some GPL'd components (gcc, groff minimum).
do i want GPL'ed components? NO! but i aint written replacements
either ;(
i dont understand how using gmake for GNU programs is more evil
than using gcc for all of FreeBSD. if the build tool "contaminates"
the resulting binary...all of FreeBSD is in that boat.
so that must not be the case. we would only use gmake for GPL'ed
programs. this adds one GPL'ed tool only. it may result in
people porting more GPL'ed tools. they dont have to go into
the core-system. for that matter neither does gmake. some people
run FreeBSD without ever recompiling anything (it does happen,
strange as it seems to me :)
jmb
--
Jonathan M. Bresler FreeBSD Postmaster jmb@FreeBSD.ORG
FreeBSD--4.4BSD Unix for PC clones, source included. http://www.freebsd.org/
PGP 2.6.2 Fingerprint: 31 57 41 56 06 C1 40 13 C5 1C E3 E5 DC 62 0E FB
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606191719.KAA01800>