Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:05:50 -0600 From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] GNU make 3.82 Message-ID: <2B21F26B-D7EA-480B-BFA2-BD12DDDB7721@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4D792578.6000303@FreeBSD.org> References: <488C7790-D3E2-4441-BEC8-DD26D8917181@freebsd.org> <4D792578.6000303@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 10, 2011, at 13:24 , Doug Barton wrote: > Can you give us an idea of how many ports we're talking about? Rather = than having 2 gmake ports (which is likely to last for a very long time, = "best laid plans" aside) can we at least explore the idea of fixing = things that are broken to work with 3.82 first? My suggestion is to do = the -exp run, then post here and to maintainers of broken ports directly = and see what a reasonable time frame would be to get things fixed the = right way first. Preliminary runs show ~50 ports that break with 3.82, some of them = unfortunately being dependencies for a reasonable number of others. An = -exp has already been run, though there were a number of false positives = for whatever reason. There will absolutely _not_ be two gmake ports for anything more than a = suitable deprecation period (if it is determined to move ahead) or for = perhaps a month (specifically note that devel/gmake381 is marked IGNORE = and not attached to the tree, so anyone trying to use it will have ... = problems) if it's too much in the way of hacking. > My understanding is that there is _currently_ no pressure to get gmake = upgraded, so at least exploring the idea of doing it without a kludge = seems reasonable to me, although I'm happy to be proven wrong. The "kludge", in terms of actually testing things to get empirical data, = rather than hand-waving about the sky falling, is ~4 lines of code in = bsd.port.mk. We have a plan, we're going to get the results of that = plan, and then do some analysis on it. Working closely with the pkgsrc = tree that already _is_ at gmake-3.82 You may find a more productive approach would be to wander over to the = gnumake mailing list, and ask why such a massive amount of backwards = incompatibility was introduced in a minor version upgrade. Of course, = that's entirely your prerogative. In the meantime, I along with a few = others are actually going to _do_ the work involved in _testing_ the = _possibility_ of this instead of sitting in our armchairs. -aDe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2B21F26B-D7EA-480B-BFA2-BD12DDDB7721>