Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:12:53 -0700 From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> 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: <20121026181253.C6EA958094@chaos.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <21B6834A-C986-4103-B395-D1F23FB23380@bsdimp.com> 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> <21B6834A-C986-4103-B395-D1F23FB23380@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 = >permeated itself into many places, not all of which are obvious. 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. FreeBSD make already grok's the :tl and :tu modifiers, so it is quite simple for the two to coexist for some period. The only reason we are talking about having to frob ports etc now, is a new requirement introduced this year (by yourself I think) that bmake replace make in base rather than allow coexistence. If we are all happy to go back to the original plan, we can ease the concerns of the folk you speak of? The only downside is we wait a few more years for major build improvments.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121026181253.C6EA958094>