From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Jun 19 09:53:42 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA29379
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 19 Jun 1996 09:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from jmb@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA29372;
          Wed, 19 Jun 1996 09:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb>
Message-Id: <199606191653.JAA29372@freefall.freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: tcl -- what's going on here.
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 09:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: nate@sri.MT.net, phk@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <22601.835171642@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Jun 19, 96 01:07:22 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> 
> you've come up with some way of eliminating the bmake-munging process
> for ports like gcc and groff, I'd suggest you just let the man finish
> what he started and admit to yourself that you've got no better plan
> of your own to offer ("stay right where we are" being an option only
> to those who don't have to do the bmake integration work every time :-).

Jordan, Poul,

	bmake'ing tcl, gcc, groff, etc...every time a new version comes
	out is a real pain.  so is having a monster like this in the
	cvs tree.

	bmake'ing gmake and having gmake a prerequisite for these other
	GNU components is ugly (two make programs: gmake and bmake) but
	avoids both problems.

	i imagine that there are other cvs issues here that escape me
	but what of incorporating gmake and using it in place of bmake
	for GNU stuff.  and not bringing in these monster tarballs.

	workable?  acceptable?

jmb
--
Jonathan M. Bresler           FreeBSD Postmaster             jmb@FreeBSD.ORG
FreeBSD--4.4BSD Unix for PC clones, source included. http://www.freebsd.org/
PGP 2.6.2 Fingerprint:      31 57 41 56 06 C1 40 13  C5 1C E3 E5 DC 62 0E FB