From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 11 03:46:18 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 BFCE3106566B; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 03:46:18 +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 986798FC19; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 03:46:18 +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 1PxtIv-0007VF-Gs; Fri, 11 Mar 2011 03:46:17 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Ade Lovett In-Reply-To: <4D796857.1020305@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 21:46:06 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1150BA48-1B1D-4C8E-9059-ADF5CE2C494C@FreeBSD.org> References: <488C7790-D3E2-4441-BEC8-DD26D8917181@freebsd.org> <4D792578.6000303@FreeBSD.org> <2B21F26B-D7EA-480B-BFA2-BD12DDDB7721@FreeBSD.org> <4D7932AC.1020508@FreeBSD.org> <883EDE8E-309A-497B-A9ED-2350AC1D2546@FreeBSD.org> <20110310235432.GA11144@lonesome.com> <4D796857.1020305@FreeBSD.org> To: FreeBSD Ports X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: Doug Barton 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: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 03:46:18 -0000 On Mar 10, 2011, at 18:09 , Doug Barton wrote: > First, my point was not "there are going to be a lot of gmake ports," = my point was, "there will be >1 for a long time after it's split into = >1." You have now proved my point, thanks. Apples and oranges, my friend. Given the sheer amount of stuff we have = in ports/, there is a small amount of stuff that hasn't been updated in = forever, nor ever will be, requiring the "legacy" = autoconf-2.13/automake-1.4 Go look up pkgsrc. Or any Linux distribution. You'll find both of them = lying there. I'd love to nuke them, and those ports that require them = to build, but people tend to get upset when Really Important Application = (sic) gets removed from under them. As for the rest of your post. It's the usual diatribe. If you think = you can do better, by all means, step up to the plate and actually _do_ = something. Like yours truly has done reducing libtool to 1 version, and = autoconf/automake to 2 versions (legacy and current). Unless you're prepared to step up to the plate, offer alternate = _concrete_ plans (as I have already done) and are willing to spend = considerable brain and cpu cycles to get to the desired solution, you = have no right to question what _is_ being done by those that _are_ doing = it. This is _not_ a democracy. The war cry of "Patches Welcome" should be = obvious in that fact. So. Let's see your patches. Seriously. Hell, if someone else takes = this on (and note, it is only a matter of time before something = fundamental _requires_ GNU make 3.82, so we can't just bury our heads in = the sand), go for it. Didn't think so. -aDe