Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 10:56:31 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@freefall.freebsd.org> Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard), nate@sri.MT.net, phk@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: tcl -- what's going on here. Message-ID: <199606191656.KAA06240@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <199606191653.JAA29372@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <22601.835171642@time.cdrom.com> <199606191653.JAA29372@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jonathan M. Bresler writes:
> 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.
Actually no. Bmake should be able to handle building these programs, so
it's not an issue of 'just building it' IMHO.
> workable? acceptable?
We're trying to *avoid* adding GPL'd components to the tree, and if we
use Gmake we make the tree unusable for anyone trying to use FreeBSD for
'other' purposes, which is one of the tenets ofthe BSD vs. GPL licensing
scheme.
Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606191656.KAA06240>