From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 1 18:01:33 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E85416A4CF; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 18:01:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp1.server.rpi.edu (smtp1.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F1343D1F; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 18:01:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp1.server.rpi.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j11I1VSk022626; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:01:32 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20050201123549.T36875@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> References: <200502011050.j11Aob36039942@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050201123549.T36875@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 13:01:31 -0500 To: Harti Brandt , src-committers@FreeBSD.org From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-RPI-SA-Score: undef - spam-scanning disabled X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/make GNode.h arch.c arch.h ... X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:01:33 -0000 At 12:38 PM +0100 2/1/05, Harti Brandt wrote: >These changes and upcoming patches are synchronized with DragonFly >BSD. Max also tries to convince the NetBSD people to adopt >changes (if things don't conflict). It is more accurate to say "where things don't conflict", because we already know there's a few places where they will conflict... :-) That reminds me of something though. At one point (back in 2003) the NetBSD folks asked on the bsd-api mailing list about adding a type of simple array-processing ability to make. Once we all agreed on what it should look like, I believe they added it to their `make'. At least at the time they asked, the new features did not conflict with anything in our `make'. It would be nice if we could add the same features to our `make', too. [I had intended to add it, but by the time the details were all sorted out I was busy with some other projects] -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu