From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 17 19:06:11 2005 Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG> X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A74C516A41C; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:06:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sem@ciam.ru) Received: from mail.ciam.ru (mail.ciam.ru [213.147.57.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 553B243D48; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:06:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sem@ciam.ru) Received: from [213.85.81.137] (helo=[192.168.0.2]) by mail.ciam.ru with esmtpa (Exim 4.x) id 1DjMAM-0002ix-4g; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:06:10 +0400 Message-ID: <42B31F51.4050506@ciam.ru> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 23:06:57 +0400 From: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@ciam.ru> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> References: <200506161937.j5GJb3sC023271@freefall.freebsd.org> <42B2A361.5000906@ciam.ru> <42B30931.4010901@FreeBSD.org> <42B3188F.70807@ciam.ru> <42B31A79.2070900@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <42B31A79.2070900@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/59695: [PATCH] devel/gmake: add two patches to avoid core dumps X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>, <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports> List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>, <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:06:11 -0000 Ade Lovett wrote: > No. Sorry, but this is absolutely NOT going to happen. The absolute > last thing we need right now is to have two gmakes in the tree. This > will lead to serious confusion for absolutely minimal gain. No confusion. If user installs -devel port, he understand he could meet problems. > going nowhere. I'm sorry, but the amount of pain likely to be caused by > this does not justify the dubious benefits. For instance, out of the > 13,000 odd ports we have in the tree right now, I don't see gmake > falling over on any of them with this particular issue. Just because I can't add a port that affected the bugs. The problem exist and it don't disappear if you say I see no problem. -- Sem.