Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:41:46 -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: <21B6834A-C986-4103-B395-D1F23FB23380@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20121026172106.BA86458094@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> <37989A40-4DBD-48C8-BD65-16C7C41454B6@bsdimp.com> <20121026172106.BA86458094@chaos.jnpr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 26, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
>=20
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:27:06 -0600, Warner Losh writes:
>> And we've had the :U and :L for a similar period of time as well. =3D
>=20
> Sorry, I didn't mean to imply age has anything to do with it.
> The doc I refered to makes it clear that the two sets of conflicting
> modifers were introduced at about the same time.
>=20
>> Why can't there be a make target that turns them on in FreeBSD compat =
=3D
>> mode. You could then just drop those into bsd.port.mk and be done =
with =3D
>=20
> Because then you would lose the functionality that the alternative
> modifiers provide. Imagine throwing away the ability in /bin/sh to =
do${foo:-bar}
> Also it would perpetuate the divergence in syntax for little reason.
It's called a transition period for a reason. The historical use has =
permeated itself into many places, not all of which are obvious.
For many years, sun had two shells so that old shell scripts would work =
until they could be adapted to the new shell's syntax. So your argument =
rings a bit hollow. Compatibility always has been about being =
compatible, not about growing the feature set or purposely leaving =
features out.
> BTW there are currently < 300 makefiles in ports/ affected by the
> transition to bmake, and there were an even smaller number in src/.
And there are many companies (I know of at least two) that have enough =
infrastructure that depend on these modifiers that moving to 10 will be =
hard for them. Stupid (in their view) incompatibilities like this are a =
disincentive to upgrade or keep with FreeBSD. Easing the transition for =
them will help keep them in the fold. It is no different than keeping =
old IOCTLs around for a release or three to ease that burden.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?21B6834A-C986-4103-B395-D1F23FB23380>