Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:35:22 -0800 From: Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> To: Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: GNU-compatible, BSD-licensed bc Message-ID: <CAG6CVpU9VahQtYAijzz=M_dbg3R-z9ddbd_aEo8Z9bc3E=m1og@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <753bc6bf-9269-1ca2-550c-cb7622812a01@freebsd.org> References: <CAF=dzRNnurahLBOaKgq8_bDXNuM8biYPFbj6F2vp0t58Ejp8bg@mail.gmail.com> <A6C4B09B-4156-47A4-89B0-80E8688D59FC@FreeBSD.org> <CAG6CVpU-rgUVvWYDA%2B2qw62hzK1xOEqVwmXGSx2yrfqNMX8e7w@mail.gmail.com> <CAF=dzRNJMvNq0yiPPdWNk-F8--RPX3D6aydLpmLLX3xyvMAoQw@mail.gmail.com> <1e025f53-fc5e-5b1e-013d-ab9330a0e9db@freebsd.org> <CAG6CVpVe7yMrV1T9W1Qm5rMsTqq3T2LsYJkMKDd0EabAdDj=uQ@mail.gmail.com> <753bc6bf-9269-1ca2-550c-cb7622812a01@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Stefan, Apologies, I misunderstood the idea. However, it seems like any port that depends on gnubc today could continue to depend on gnubc on older branches until a suitable replacement propagates into stable. (And that would be less work :-).) Best, Conrad On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 2:28 AM Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org> wrote: > Am 08.01.19 um 01:31 schrieb Conrad Meyer:> Hi Stefan, > > > > I don't think there's any reason to put this in ports instead of base. > > If you're arguing that we shouldn't ship any bc in base, that's a fine > > argument to make, but it's off-topic for this discussion. > > Hi Conrad, > > yes, sure, if it passes our tests (I understand that it passes > its own test suite) it should definitely be considered for base. > I did not want to suggest a removal of bc from base at this time. > > But given our release cycle it will take a long time for this bc > to actually occur in a release - that's why I proposed to create > a port that could be depended on by other ports that currently > require GNU bc. > > This would also provide us with more confidence, that this version > is actually a fully compatible replacement for GNU bc. > > > If at some point after that you want to remove bc from base and fix > > all of the fallout of that much larger change, you are welcome to take > > on that (much larger) project. > > No, that's not what I wanted to suggest at this time. An existing > port will reduce the effort required to test removal of bc from > base (if only slightly), but bc is quite useful in base (unlike > e.g. ctm or timed), and I'd expect it to stay ... > > Regards, STefan >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAG6CVpU9VahQtYAijzz=M_dbg3R-z9ddbd_aEo8Z9bc3E=m1og>