From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 28 20:01:02 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F63E39; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:01:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com (mail-bk0-f54.google.com [209.85.214.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 142228FC1C; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:01:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id jf20so1779850bkc.13 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:01:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=V+pGt6YVdmerQPUdA7zfO3wCdQBie6i31EIidHe0/yI=; b=T6pI3TKTZGZBA+I9NnB86OIIQ65KvVHrG8yvf4PceNBphnMZi05DEe0pMl1/NZeqZH PBfb0uKSXQ+CvJilKHGFXZJ7qYUyLqyEp+0IKsKjp9ajAQ+c/VzFewPD6w0YdrrLPOex i/2zwKovxe8rSp0IZr8nFf9c1mubCWc8ncrurAMTu0buLccOa4ppDtBNBQVG81yyXdBg GBfLzMLD4xvMzYfIlFRgpL43Tj2MOFhQmZtDnBsSB8OZB7PR+sH2DgaWxSZihTHiBotR MEp2uOasYO6JJ6dTQFxyewXjepWuR5W7oRx3pawLAZ5CEACi0AcJjtHDQLrdG/yiPGIR tKcw== Received: by 10.204.128.201 with SMTP id l9mr8512554bks.66.1351454460876; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:01:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.50.197 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:00:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20121028191144.C10F058094@chaos.jnpr.net> References: <201210020750.23358.jhb@freebsd.org> <201210021037.27762.jhb@freebsd.org> <127FA63D-8EEE-4616-AE1E-C39469DDCC6A@xcllnt.net> <20121025211522.GA32636@dragon.NUXI.org> <3F52B7C9-A7B7-4E0E-87D0-1E67FE5D0BA7@xcllnt.net> <20121025221244.GG3808@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20121026181152.GC44331@dragon.NUXI.org> <20121026204910.E1FFA58094@chaos.jnpr.net> <20121026233225.54FB858094@chaos.jnpr.net> <20121028191144.C10F058094@chaos.jnpr.net> From: Chris Rees Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:00:30 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program To: "Simon J. Gerraty" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:01:03 -0000 On 28 October 2012 19:11, Simon J. Gerraty wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:06:41 +0000, Chris Rees writes: >>Are we planning to replace /usr/bin/make with bmake in the near future? > > That was what I heard, but any such move is dependent on dealing with > ports. The ~sjg/ports2bmake.tar.gz on freefall is the plan I came up > with after the above "requirement" was introduced at last BSDCan. > >>If yes, what changes are we going to make to the ports tree to ensure >>that -CURRENT can still use it? > > If you mean -current (aka head); the plan is to convert ports to bmake > syntax wrt to the 2 conflicting modifiers. At my last test there are > just under 300 makefiles in ports that use the old modifiers. > > Now for < head (ie. /usr/bin/make is an old version), the above ports > tree detects that bmake is not being used, and invokes a shell script > (bmake-sh) to do what was asked. > > That script will look for bmake and if necessary build/install it. > To do that, it creates a temp copy of Mk/*.mk converted back to the old > syntax so that the old make can build and install bmake, and then the > old system is on par with -current. > > That's what I meant by "ports will take care of itself". > The main gap btw in the above, is if a user who does not have privs to > install bmake, is the only person trying to do something with ports. > > The above plan needs to be approved by portmgr, and obviouslty a test > run of building all ports is needed (possibly more than one). > > Does that help? Certainly, thank you. I didn't find it clear when inspecting the tarball (obviously I hadn't read the README clearly enough). I'm going to have to echo John's non-obvious comment however, and I think it would be very helpful to have a clear public writeup, perhaps Q&A style to allay any other such fears. Chris