Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 23:15:08 -0500 From: "Rick C. Petty" <rick-freebsd@kiwi-computer.com> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@math.missouri.edu> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Looking for speed increases in "make index" and pkg_version for ports Message-ID: <20070529041508.GA22341@keira.kiwi-computer.com> In-Reply-To: <20070527223048.GA37505@icarus.home.lan> References: <4659EF80.70100@math.missouri.edu> <20070527223048.GA37505@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 03:30:48PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > That said, I'll ask this out in the open: am I the only one who sees the > benefit of GNU make in regards to this? There's a lot of built-in > functions in GNU make which could help in regards to ports. I have no > qualms with PMake per se, but if another tool gives us what we need, > then maybe we should consider the pros and cons of adapting that. > There's also CMake, which is incredibly fast. Yes, you are. What gmake benefits? Gmake does not provide the flexibility and power that pmake provides. Off the top of my head: gmake does not have ".for" loops, variable expansion modifiers, or even the "!=" shell command variable assigment. I use these in almost every Makefile I write, and the ports uses these things quite a bit. Also, gmake syntax is horrendous compared to pmake. People are already complaining about how ugly the ports makefiles are-- they'd be worse under gmake. Might as well rewrite the whole infrastructure in /bin/sh ... Also, there's the licensing issues. Remember-- any significant changes to this infrastructure has to work with the core utilities.. this leaves out gmake, python, ruby, etc. I doubt anyone will find anything as powerful as pmake without sacrificing the much-used flexibility it provides. -- Rick C. Petty
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070529041508.GA22341>