From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 10 23:06:02 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D1C8BC0; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 23:06:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-we0-x22b.google.com (mail-we0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAA2F870; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 23:06:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id p10so56952wes.2; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:06:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=11erkOPs6IziL1IEoZg6Jz18q2RzeEtIw/bHqZqxF5M=; b=VTr87p3BjxoG1w3/j0tajl3sSi+jAhlaJjEeZSG0jjcHmp/ULYFg4Zr4+SSa9frnCB AbHFozjI8u2jh35R4g3ukIWefc/RgUlz8VKEPcbkacOesBlaR6KvTexQQPBVuSdIzANg c0oeomgW4YOqjbJKUhubCJaR+E1Stlhyx/n0GjpMhkVywIc0m1dgwZmKej/kSp/Kxw/G CDsldDDArnfUPH3vUoTKkNpvR/3/ML1X7g5xBXkTgvb/cNbPNZs0OZ9NZZrPri77t7/o rlltB5T22o+t3TlI4mgduHb6D3wpwLDVRJ2q0XgG05g9FDoSTfkvLc/OHDceDHqaC5Bu x6hQ== X-Received: by 10.180.75.39 with SMTP id z7mr153466wiv.78.1423609560492; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:06:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from ivaldir.etoilebsd.net ([2001:41d0:8:db4c::1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dm6sm435101wib.22.2015.02.10.15.05.59 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:05:59 -0800 (PST) Sender: Baptiste Daroussin Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:05:57 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Ian Lepore Subject: Re: [RFC] Removin the old make Message-ID: <20150210230557.GV29891@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> References: <20150210223854.GT29891@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <20150210224937.GE58387@eureka.lemis.com> <20150210225941.GU29891@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <1423609456.80968.32.camel@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6h64vBu9tReNbGLX" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1423609456.80968.32.camel@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: Greg 'groggy' Lehey , arch@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 23:06:02 -0000 --6h64vBu9tReNbGLX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 04:04:16PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 23:59 +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:49:37AM +1100, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 10 February 2015 at 23:38:54 +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wr= ote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I would like to start using bmake only syntax on our infrastructure= for that I > > > > want to make sure noone is using the old make, so I plan to remove = the old make > > > > from base, I plan to do it by Feb 16th. > > >=20 > > > How does this affect non-system Makefiles that depend on pmake? Is > > > bmake completely upward compatible? > >=20 > > There are very few issues, not that fmake is available from ports, I th= ink 99% > > of the compatibility are preserved I know about a couple of incompatibi= lities > > that are bothering me in ports (for the infrastructure) but I would say= this is > > very much a corner case > >=20 > > Bapt >=20 > By far the biggest incompatibility I've run into is the change from :U > and :L to :tu and :tl, mostly because any existing makefiles that > contain :U or :L variable modifiers just silently do the wrong thing > under bmake. It's especially annoying because :L is really common in > fmake and its meaning in bmake is all but useless. >=20 Ah yes I forgot that one :) which is the reason why I have blocked migratio= n to bmake for a while :) Still fmake is available via ports so might not be a problem Best regards, Bapt --6h64vBu9tReNbGLX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlTajtUACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EzyxwCeI9Lt4UPGBa4I6GP0Z/d7Lby5 wscAn3z73P1UI1G7vKpqjYBy4LiEbmg0 =8uZ8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6h64vBu9tReNbGLX--