Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:17:11 +0300
From:      Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To:        "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net>
Cc:        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:  <20121026181711.GU35915@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
In-Reply-To: <20121026181253.C6EA958094@chaos.jnpr.net>
References:  <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> <21B6834A-C986-4103-B395-D1F23FB23380@bsdimp.com> <20121026181253.C6EA958094@chaos.jnpr.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--vNKtQyIwo9cfIjjL
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:12:53AM -0700, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
>=20
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:41:46 -0600, Warner Losh writes:
> >It's called a transition period for a reason.  The historical use has =3D
> >permeated itself into many places, not all of which are obvious.
>=20
> It would seem that leaving FreeBSD make as make, for the transition
> period and installing bmake as bmake, would cause the least disruption
> to everyone.  This was the original proposal presented at BSDCan in 2011.
>=20
> FreeBSD make already grok's the :tl and :tu modifiers,
> so it is quite simple for the two to coexist for some period.
>=20
> The only reason we are talking about having to frob ports etc now,=20
> is a new requirement introduced this year (by yourself I think)
> that bmake replace make in base rather than allow coexistence.
>=20
> If we are all happy to go back to the original plan, we can ease the
> concerns of the folk you speak of?
>=20
> The only downside is we wait a few more years for major build improvments.

Can system build, initiated by make, call bmake immediately ?
I suppose it could be fine even to error out if make is typed instead of
bmake for src/.

--vNKtQyIwo9cfIjjL
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAlCK06YACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4jeBQCg0u3d/BnFMYOp0h58QW4Mc+3h
vbgAnA4HUmrbLKg7mOVSwthXSIHtq2oe
=2edq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--vNKtQyIwo9cfIjjL--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121026181711.GU35915>