Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:01:27 +0100 From: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org> To: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net>, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Subject: Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program Message-ID: <CADLo839EUTF9bP8VD3L1_boY8i-w8B87yHGRR7Zx6wONFnSnEQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAGH67wRw_n2_KwVz=DZkMpeJ4t8mMf965nxehHsDV-mzTnn5cA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAGH67wRkOmy7rWLkxXnT2155PuSQpwOMyu7dTAKeO1WW2dju7g@mail.gmail.com> <201210020750.23358.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAGH67wTM1VDrpu7rS=VE1G_kVEOHhS4-OCy5FX_6eDGmiNTA8A@mail.gmail.com> <201210021037.27762.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAGH67wQffjVHqFw_eN=mfeg-Ac2Z6XBT5Hv72ev0kjjx7YH7SA@mail.gmail.com> <127FA63D-8EEE-4616-AE1E-C39469DDCC6A@xcllnt.net> <20121025211522.GA32636@dragon.NUXI.org> <3F52B7C9-A7B7-4E0E-87D0-1E67FE5D0BA7@xcllnt.net> <CAGH67wRw_n2_KwVz=DZkMpeJ4t8mMf965nxehHsDV-mzTnn5cA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25 October 2012 22:32, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> wrote: > > ... > >> I think there are 2 reasons why not to: >> >> 1. The people working on ATF have not raised this concern and >> have expressed that using the WITH_BMAKE knob is but a small >> price to pay. So let's work the bmake side and be able to >> get rid of the knob as soon as possible. > > It is annoying with the magnitude of build-related errors, but I have > a workaround. > >> 2. More knobs isn't better -- we must have none of the knobs in >> the end, so the more we create, the more work we have to get >> rid of them. That's just more work spent not focusing on the >> task at hand and thus more time wasted. > > Yes, but not being able to update one's machine makes me sad panda. > >> In short: this isn't a 2-knob problem by any stretch of the >> imagination. > > The real issue is that I need to take the patch Simon developed, run > with it, and in parallel he needs to -- and hopefully already is -- > engage portmgr to get it through a number of exp- runs to make sure > bmake does what it's supposed to do with his patch. Backwards > compatibility will need to be maintained for ports because ports has > to work on multiple versions of FreeBSD [where bmake isn't yet > available/present], so maybe a fork in the road for bsd.port.mk should > be devised in order to make everything work. Now you've terrified me, and probably most other ports people too. Is there a Wiki page where the actual benefits of moving to bmake are made clear? This is a major, *major* upheaval, and having two versions of bsd.port.mk for years is simply not an option. Have you discussed this on ports@? Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo839EUTF9bP8VD3L1_boY8i-w8B87yHGRR7Zx6wONFnSnEQ>