From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 5 22:33:06 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E73B07AA for ; Mon, 5 May 2014 22:33:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com (mail-pd0-f170.google.com [209.85.192.170]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9918AD0E for ; Mon, 5 May 2014 22:33:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id v10so2046872pde.15 for ; Mon, 05 May 2014 15:33:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=VGOx9Ho4EeLnzSIH8q76/0Nw1C+kkv1ML5GwoaasCJI=; b=a2RXVR6AnDMN/5+oDYssrc5yujE/w2EJD/P4Rj7dN+FGU2EGVubHndNN7gAuR/V/11 lmaylE62SpwfXuBc6+Gbkvk1joRthZEeBGiMnwPBMopf+Nfq6TOMCQ5uAic9d04lbia/ SipQbuaa1BSOtV0WSSi8FosPKXaYx2VRjOuu67ISep4vd5o4uo7oqnQVUaFVnyb5shaB hqn7CR0gigUfIA9Rpqc0pUDeoRt5KbCMru/5tWVMf8zesCuFZPZmUPcn5bujLQFl9rFM 6/DiMH/dqNX8VW0PWN6Y0eNBGXgcfbzBNALLe2YjGmqshR4EMID1tJpWGT8FQAYc4bz3 cQMw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkH3HXRT1Uzw1pCQMDGOcJ38598xBIHEtdS7weqma3pxtJzdmIkQ6LDBU0+f7Hgpk2gOidT X-Received: by 10.66.218.226 with SMTP id pj2mr34302883pac.134.1399329184731; Mon, 05 May 2014 15:33:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.64.26.239] (dc1-prod.netflix.com. [69.53.236.251]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ey5sm81816440pab.22.2014.05.05.15.33.03 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 05 May 2014 15:33:04 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Warner Losh X-Google-Original-From: Warner Losh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) Subject: Re: Can fmake be deleted? From: Warner Losh In-Reply-To: <53678B51.4050406@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 16:33:02 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1CEFC5F1-084B-4785-983F-C42EB858E2F9@gmail.com> References: <20140422202506.GA63561@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <20140422214610.GC63561@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <611243783F62AF48AFB07BC25FA4B1061CACCBA2@DLREXMBX01.intra.dlr.de> <53678B51.4050406@freebsd.org> To: Julian Elischer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) Cc: sjg@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Hartmut.Brandt@dlr.de, jmmv@freebsd.org, bapt@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 22:33:06 -0000 On May 5, 2014, at 7:00 AM, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 5/5/14, 7:41 PM, Hartmut.Brandt@dlr.de wrote: >> Hi, >>=20 >> I've seen that you've copied all the make tests over to usr.bin/make = with a comment that they are fmake-only. According to your question they = are to be removed. >>=20 >> Isn't bmake based on some version of fmake? In fact several of these = tests check for bugs that I've fixed in our fmake some years ago. Are = they now reintroduced via the bmake import? Wouldn't it make sense to = retain the tests that apply to bmake? >=20 > so this brings up the question on my mind which is; >=20 > So what's up with bmake? > How does it relate to the old FreeBSD make? > Why did we need a new make? what does it get us? bmake is NetBSD=92s make. fmake and bmake have a common ancestor and some cross pollination over = the years, but they have become incompatible. bmake is better maintained than fmake. The whole meta-build system is = based on it, which would be a quantum leap beyond what fmake can do. In = the mean time, we get better compatibility with NetBSD, a better = maintained make and slightly better syntax for some things (and fewer = bugs) at the cost of some growing pains where the two were incompatible, = or we had bugs in fmake that we accidentally depended on. fmake remains in the tree as a transition measure. The next step is to = remove the (already broken) support for building world with fmake. Once = somebody has an actual, working fmake port, and some time has passed, we = can reorbit it from the tree. This has always been the plan, as far as = I know, and there=92s no reason to significantly speed it up based on = this thread. Warner=