Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:27:06 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Subject: Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program Message-ID: <37989A40-4DBD-48C8-BD65-16C7C41454B6@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20121026062356.3143A58094@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> <20121025225353.86DA658094@chaos.jnpr.net> <20121026050130.GL35915@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20121026062356.3143A58094@chaos.jnpr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Simon J. Gerraty wrote: >> In particular, why cannot the ':L' and ':U' support be added ? >=20 > Because they already exist - with different meanings. > They were added to NetBSD make over 10 years ago, from the OSF version > of pmake. And we've had the :U and :L for a similar period of time as well. = Arguing age here is an interesting historical footnote, but not a = compelling argument to justify the pain to our users. > In several areas the behavior of bmake has been changed to make it a > drop in replacement for FreeBSD, but the above (not used at all in the > FreeBSD base) are easier dealt with the other way. The :tl and :tu > equivalents were added to FreeBSD make a while back to ease the > transition. Why can't there be a make target that turns them on in FreeBSD compat = mode. You could then just drop those into bsd.port.mk and be done with = it? We already do this with the posix target, so there's precedent for = it. I know you've objected to this as ugly, but as I pointed out when I = mentioned it before, I think this is less ugly and less work and would = offer a smoother transition than forcing all the scripts to change. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37989A40-4DBD-48C8-BD65-16C7C41454B6>