From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 10 20:06:02 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7028106566C for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:06:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ade@FreeBSD.org) Received: from panix.lovett.com (panix.lovett.com [166.84.7.128]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB4C8FC0A for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:06:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cpe-66-68-128-204.austin.res.rr.com ([66.68.128.204] helo=[172.16.32.150]) by panix.lovett.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.73 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Pxm7V-0006dL-48; Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:06:01 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ade Lovett In-Reply-To: <4D792578.6000303@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:05:50 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2B21F26B-D7EA-480B-BFA2-BD12DDDB7721@FreeBSD.org> References: <488C7790-D3E2-4441-BEC8-DD26D8917181@freebsd.org> <4D792578.6000303@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] GNU make 3.82 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:06:02 -0000 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