Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 20:37:54 +0200 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tcl -- what's going on here. Message-ID: <199606191837.UAA00804@grumble.grondar.za>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
> > Unless you can say that NO-ONE is willing to do the bmake-munging
> > process for them, then this is a moot point. Apparently Peter already
> > did, and I don't see a burning need for doing groff.
>
> By now you've alraedy read my other responses so I'll not belabor the
> point. Suffice it to say that I don't see an abundance or scarcity of
> `bmakers' as the issue so much as I do the difficulty involved. I'd
> hoped we could get off that treadmill. If it weren't difficult then
> you wouldn't even have to say:
How about meeting the problem half way?
I see it sorta like this; folks are objecting to this large invariant file
in the repository, and the alternative is being suggested as bmaking tcl.
I say, why not _not_ bmake tcl, let it "all hang out" in its original
format, except untarred and with patches applied, and let its own
build do the work (modulo some makefile diffs (destdir etc)). diffs
can easily be generated with 'cvs diff'. Further versions {c|sh}ould
be imported on vendor branches.
Same could apply to gcc, perl, etc...
M
--
Mark Murray
46 Harvey Rd, Claremont, Cape Town 7700, South Africa
+27 21 61-3768 GMT+0200
Finger mark@grondar.za for PGP key
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606191837.UAA00804>