Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:21:00 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] GNU make 3.82 Message-ID: <4D7932AC.1020508@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <2B21F26B-D7EA-480B-BFA2-BD12DDDB7721@FreeBSD.org> References: <488C7790-D3E2-4441-BEC8-DD26D8917181@freebsd.org> <4D792578.6000303@FreeBSD.org> <2B21F26B-D7EA-480B-BFA2-BD12DDDB7721@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/10/2011 12:05, Ade Lovett wrote: > > On Mar 10, 2011, at 13:24 , Doug Barton wrote: >> Can you give us an idea of how many ports we're talking about? >> Rather than having 2 gmake ports (which is likely to last for a >> very long time, "best laid plans" aside) can we at least explore >> the idea of fixing things that are broken to work with 3.82 first? >> My suggestion is to do the -exp run, then post here and to >> maintainers of broken ports directly and see what a reasonable time >> frame would be to get things fixed the right way first. > > Preliminary runs show ~50 ports that break with 3.82, some of them > unfortunately being dependencies for a reasonable number of others. > An -exp has already been run, though there were a number of false > positives for whatever reason. What I'm suggesting is that the URL for the logs of that run get posted here, along with contacting the maintainers of the affected ports. Then let's see what people have to say about getting them fixed sooner rather than later. Can you explain why doing that would be a bad idea? > There will absolutely _not_ be two gmake ports for anything more than > a suitable deprecation period I admire your optimism, however experience tells us that once these types of accomodations get into the tree, they stay there for a long time. >> My understanding is that there is _currently_ no pressure to get >> gmake upgraded, so at least exploring the idea of doing it without >> a kludge seems reasonable to me, although I'm happy to be proven >> wrong. > > The "kludge", in terms of actually testing things to get empirical > data, rather than hand-waving about the sky falling, Um, no one said the sky is falling, and you've reacted emotionally to the term "kludge" rather than answering my question about what the urgency is to get the update done. > We have a plan, we're going to get the results > of that plan, and then do some analysis on it. And my concern is that the plan seems to have been formulated without wider input from the community. So I ask again ... what harm can come from at least trying to fix the broken ports first? Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D7932AC.1020508>