Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:00:30 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program Message-ID: <CADLo83-uMhXvSUc-iemH%2BqtNBeBhqybWvpxuK4HtcaC8hQCi2A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20121028191144.C10F058094@chaos.jnpr.net> References: <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> <CADLo839EUTF9bP8VD3L1_boY8i-w8B87yHGRR7Zx6wONFnSnEQ@mail.gmail.com> <20121025221244.GG3808@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20121026181152.GC44331@dragon.NUXI.org> <CADLo838vSnYm3LMr_6maQipAYtBTX%2BCCyEhC053cj_amgNJH=g@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo83-d0tDN8k5Lv9c5=6vQawVHSHZENfTpKzxe61OYqqxSeA@mail.gmail.com> <20121026204910.E1FFA58094@chaos.jnpr.net> <CADLo8383Y823kqKgBLHfx9CdCDuZQgVQSYwfuWq_29Hq7cYv=Q@mail.gmail.com> <20121026233225.54FB858094@chaos.jnpr.net> <CADLo839LZOdMp%2B%2B3PnbN91%2B5Lfzvm=_GNRRfVdVATYcXm9BVJg@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo838%2BxXpYvmY53z4=Ka6Ys1E8AyLSRqwEFPQ1LU3powouvQ@mail.gmail.com> <20121028191144.C10F058094@chaos.jnpr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28 October 2012 19:11, Simon J. Gerraty <sjg@juniper.net> wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:06:41 +0000, Chris Rees writes: >>Are we planning to replace /usr/bin/make with bmake in the near future? > > That was what I heard, but any such move is dependent on dealing with > ports. The ~sjg/ports2bmake.tar.gz on freefall is the plan I came up > with after the above "requirement" was introduced at last BSDCan. > >>If yes, what changes are we going to make to the ports tree to ensure >>that -CURRENT can still use it? > > If you mean -current (aka head); the plan is to convert ports to bmake > syntax wrt to the 2 conflicting modifiers. At my last test there are > just under 300 makefiles in ports that use the old modifiers. > > Now for < head (ie. /usr/bin/make is an old version), the above ports > tree detects that bmake is not being used, and invokes a shell script > (bmake-sh) to do what was asked. > > That script will look for bmake and if necessary build/install it. > To do that, it creates a temp copy of Mk/*.mk converted back to the old > syntax so that the old make can build and install bmake, and then the > old system is on par with -current. > > That's what I meant by "ports will take care of itself". > The main gap btw in the above, is if a user who does not have privs to > install bmake, is the only person trying to do something with ports. > > The above plan needs to be approved by portmgr, and obviouslty a test > run of building all ports is needed (possibly more than one). > > Does that help? Certainly, thank you. I didn't find it clear when inspecting the tarball (obviously I hadn't read the README clearly enough). I'm going to have to echo John's non-obvious comment however, and I think it would be very helpful to have a clear public writeup, perhaps Q&A style to allay any other such fears. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-uMhXvSUc-iemH%2BqtNBeBhqybWvpxuK4HtcaC8hQCi2A>