From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 26 06:23:12 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41F922BE; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:23:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com (mail-bk0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 872FA8FC08; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:23:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id jf20so1138412bkc.13 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:23:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=EEwzFcncGp9ZkI0KBoBbujGDU0SP2jt5pLBsuLDXGXw=; b=v7HIu/9MjTrNkozEYKovwpXoZ8ElCLTdknkvoWwZXIKjPfR9fxq4YdV2DMFnjCqicL AWfXEDgbsPL2UhNk/tZdpzlfln92B+SReCxY9oWCiBhwZ2BGKOFoYm+/UEZg/6C+CphU f7CODOWF4SkDpoOdHpmhfCHowBM4F3TSATe5VixeSr75d5W60p5II9RQ4ueWY8Hi7UEc xixlxUE3fqG+d+t5pDOIgYXcIvc/vwFwbHV/OLlXPZdONChqwCJdN0YL8x85Q7j/UjM+ hzL3imSF0HD96EGt+IontWfUApMwnaDvO54Raadia62VGOkC0IweDyNdqFKaJBfTDnFm OBfA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.4.200 with SMTP id 8mr7049538bks.81.1351232590037; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:23:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.50.197 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.50.197 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:23:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20121026050130.GL35915@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <201210020750.23358.jhb@freebsd.org> <201210021037.27762.jhb@freebsd.org> <127FA63D-8EEE-4616-AE1E-C39469DDCC6A@xcllnt.net> <20121025211522.GA32636@dragon.NUXI.org> <3F52B7C9-A7B7-4E0E-87D0-1E67FE5D0BA7@xcllnt.net> <20121025225353.86DA658094@chaos.jnpr.net> <20121026050130.GL35915@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 07:23:09 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program From: Chris Rees To: Konstantin Belousov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: "Simon J. Gerraty" , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Marcel Moolenaar , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:23:12 -0000 On 26 Oct 2012 06:01, "Konstantin Belousov" wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:53:53PM -0700, Simon J. Gerraty wrote: > > > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:01:27 +0100, Chris Rees writes: > > >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. > > > > There is no need/plan for two versions of bsd.port.mk, the patch I just > > mentioned, deals with older systems by detecting that bmake was not > > used, and using it (installing if need be). > > > > >Have you discussed this on ports@? > > > > I have not at least. > > This was discussed at the last couple of BSDCan's and dev summits. > > > > The original plan discussed at BSDCan a couple of years ago, was to > > allow bmake and the old make to cooexist for some time so that ports > > could continue to use the old make. > > > > At the last BSDCan we were told that wasn't an option - hence the patch > > to ports that was mentioned. > > > > FWIW the changes to 99.9% of the ports tree are trivial (:L -> :tl etc). > > The only interesting changes are to bsd.port.mk (the diff other than the > > above is 54 lines) they cover 2 things - dealing with old make as > > mentioned above, and man pages. The nested .for loops that deal > > with MLINKS are replaced with one line - this was safer that attempting > > to hack those .for loops to work with both makes. > > I am watching the serial for some time. Could please, someone, describe > why bmake cannot grow the compat features to be a drop-in replacement for > FreeBSD make, instead of patching all the trees ? > > In particular, why cannot the ':L' and ':U' support be added ? :U is already used by bmake for something else- I can't remember what, but I checked the man page last night :( Chris