Date: Sun, 1 Jan 1995 14:35:41 -0500 From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: FreeBSD mailing-list <hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/gnu/usr.bin/gdb/bfd sysdep.h Message-ID: <9501011935.AA08328@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199501011139.DAA06394@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> References: <9501010147.AA20820@login.dknet.dk> <199501011139.DAA06394@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Sun, 1 Jan 1995 03:39:36 -0800, asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) said: > I guess I might be entirely missing the rim and the backboard here, > but is it possible to do it like the ports, i.e., just use gmake for > GNU stuff? Is it worth all the trouble to convert everything to > bmake? Yes. In particular, it is worth al the trouble for ``core'' programs to be completely integrated with our build system. For most programs, this is trivial: 1) Read GNU's Makefile.in 2) Write a set of pmake Makefiles that are one-tenth the size 3) Type make cleandir && make depend all install 4) Type make cleandir && make obj depend all install 5) Import original sources 6) Check out imported sources 7) Delete inapplicable files 8) Splat port that survived (1)-(4) onto the work directory 9) cvs update <<<<< THIS STEP IS REALLY IMPORTANT 10) cvs commit For simple programs, this takes all of half an hour, most of which is spent examining the output of `configure' and writing the appropriate Makefiles. Even GCC, if it had been done right to begin with (sorry, Paul, I know you tried), could have been done this way. Upgrading then becomes the following EXTREMELY simple process: 1) cvs import new version 2) Type the cvs co -j command that cvs import suggests 3) Fix any conflicts (should be minimal) 4) Delete inapplicable files 5) Test make 6) cvs commit which, for a moderately complex program like xntpd only takes half an hour to perform. This procedure is made somewhat difficult by the presence of people like Julian Stacey who want all the source tree to be perfect all the time (which is impossible because of the time lag between (1) and (5)). > We probably want gmake in the base distrib anyway, there are too many > ports that need it. There are good arguments for including a POSIX-compliant `make' program and renaming make(1) to something else. This isn't one of them. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... wollman@lcs.mit.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance. Opinions not those of| It is a bond more powerful than absence. We like people MIT, LCS, ANA, or NSA| who like Shashish. - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9501011935.AA08328>