Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:27:27 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> To: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] GNU make 3.82 Message-ID: <20110313212727.GB5392@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <1150BA48-1B1D-4C8E-9059-ADF5CE2C494C@FreeBSD.org> References: <488C7790-D3E2-4441-BEC8-DD26D8917181@freebsd.org> <4D792578.6000303@FreeBSD.org> <2B21F26B-D7EA-480B-BFA2-BD12DDDB7721@FreeBSD.org> <4D7932AC.1020508@FreeBSD.org> <883EDE8E-309A-497B-A9ED-2350AC1D2546@FreeBSD.org> <20110310235432.GA11144@lonesome.com> <4D796857.1020305@FreeBSD.org> <1150BA48-1B1D-4C8E-9059-ADF5CE2C494C@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--jq0ap7NbKX2Kqbes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2011-Mar-10 21:46:06 -0600, Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >As for the rest of your post. It's the usual diatribe. If you think >you can do better, by all means, step up to the plate and actually >_do_ something. Like yours truly has done reducing libtool to 1 >version, and autoconf/automake to 2 versions (legacy and current). I think you are being unreasonable here. Doug is not denigrating the work you have put into the ports system, he is merely stating that your proposed implementation plan for gmake 3.82 seems sub-optimal, based on the publicly available information. Your initial post did not even include a reference to your planned changes. I fully accept that the problem has been created by the gmake developers and is nothing to do with you. >Unless you're prepared to step up to the plate, offer alternate >_concrete_ plans (as I have already done) and are willing to spend >considerable brain and cpu cycles to get to the desired solution, you >have no right to question what _is_ being done by those that _are_ >doing it. It's very difficult to offer an alternative plan when the information needed to produce such a plan is being withheld. On several occasion, Doug has asked for the results of the gmake 3.82 exp run. This request (which seems perfectly reasonable to me) has been consistently ignored. Elsewhere in this thread, there was a reference to ports/151312. This shows as "superceded by ports/155215". Looking at the latter port, it includes a reference to a patchset to implement your plan. Having read through this thread, it is still unclear to me why it is not possible to fix up the problematic ports before importing gmake 3.82, removing the need for a gmake381 port. --=20 Peter Jeremy --jq0ap7NbKX2Kqbes Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk19Nr8ACgkQ/opHv/APuIdqUQCdEmMTIYRMgKuNwH2m1VY8eeVy cZ8Anj/3gmKjFebc63ab9nlAGGeyzUXl =+VCX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --jq0ap7NbKX2Kqbes--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110313212727.GB5392>