Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:16:24 -0800 From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> Cc: "\[LoN\]Kamikaze" <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: lang/gcc41 - libjava Message-ID: <9E058426-CEDE-4090-B6DD-920722C3F1D1@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0603162051300.7310@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> References: <4418A188.8060200@gmx.de> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0603162051300.7310@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 16, 2006, at 11:58 , Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > As an alternate approach, Maho-san and me are currently discussing > to use > the new gmake-devel port which has fixes to address the situation > on the > gmake side for the time being. I'm looking this one over and thinking about it. Right now, weighing the benefits (fixing 1, maybe 2 ports) against the obvious infrastructure issues that having two gmake ports in the tree, I'm currently of the opinion that it's not really a good solution. A considerably more preferable approach would be to put pressure on the gmake folks to get a new release pushed out, with these and other fixes, which can then be set up for an -exp run, and if successful, devel/gmake simply gets punted to a new version where everyone is happy. -aDe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9E058426-CEDE-4090-B6DD-920722C3F1D1>