From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Oct 28 14:07:13 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF7CDE49;
 Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:07:13 +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 21C578FC16;
 Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:07:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-bk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id jf20so1733310bkc.13
 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 07:07:11 -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=bbeRhWgLI2iXV0kFTnF0t0YIH4FXNaJmGPEFduOCYsE=;
 b=Q3A5aoxm00okrry9EXK+bzSvI+5gyO8XNIhbvYVCnLV1nCmbrA9vr+DYoSrZxMOtEV
 yofsL/SQ85CxQaZGzEEToXMrNrn68+LA0w+S8obFctOBoN4C7WdB7uGE3+vxupuSzYuS
 bYqlLZyFBC08adPHzY5qsrfRGM5MAdlOcX0p/lo2xN9YEDpWX3MR8CUahabI7v+76LAD
 8G2u6K4zNZC6pESVCTsbVXElkZ+BSlcuUDG3N+kVi6pnYsoy+IC7V9yKh0nBbxqS5hzF
 0jdQNgxwY4g8/TUCL4PNIaEU9vf5XSYMnHObk6t9aKJttN7NNV+Bms/hjWWeZtS1g2hs
 Om/w==
Received: by 10.204.4.200 with SMTP id 8mr8807145bks.81.1351433231667; Sun, 28
 Oct 2012 07:07:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.50.197 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Oct 2012 07:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20121027211032.C161058094@chaos.jnpr.net>
References: <201210020750.23358.jhb@freebsd.org>
 <CAGH67wTM1VDrpu7rS=VE1G_kVEOHhS4-OCy5FX_6eDGmiNTA8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <201210021037.27762.jhb@freebsd.org>
 <CAGH67wQffjVHqFw_eN=mfeg-Ac2Z6XBT5Hv72ev0kjjx7YH7SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <127FA63D-8EEE-4616-AE1E-C39469DDCC6A@xcllnt.net>
 <20121025211522.GA32636@dragon.NUXI.org>
 <3F52B7C9-A7B7-4E0E-87D0-1E67FE5D0BA7@xcllnt.net>
 <CAGH67wRw_n2_KwVz=DZkMpeJ4t8mMf965nxehHsDV-mzTnn5cA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADLo839EUTF9bP8VD3L1_boY8i-w8B87yHGRR7Zx6wONFnSnEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121025221244.GG3808@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
 <20121026181152.GC44331@dragon.NUXI.org>
 <CADLo838vSnYm3LMr_6maQipAYtBTX+CCyEhC053cj_amgNJH=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADLo83-d0tDN8k5Lv9c5=6vQawVHSHZENfTpKzxe61OYqqxSeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121026204910.E1FFA58094@chaos.jnpr.net>
 <CADLo8383Y823kqKgBLHfx9CdCDuZQgVQSYwfuWq_29Hq7cYv=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121026233225.54FB858094@chaos.jnpr.net>
 <CADLo839LZOdMp++3PnbN91+5Lfzvm=_GNRRfVdVATYcXm9BVJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADLo83-UWuVALEacEoECzoi63PmWbt+BUjk0XhU2-wnO6pXT_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20121027211032.C161058094@chaos.jnpr.net>
From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:06:41 +0000
Message-ID: <CADLo838+xXpYvmY53z4=Ka6Ys1E8AyLSRqwEFPQ1LU3powouvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs
 instead of a singular program
To: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:07:13 -0000

On 27 October 2012 22:10, Simon J. Gerraty <sjg@juniper.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:53:56 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
>>I'm saying that it's unacceptable to expect people to change their
>>systems just to make the ports tree work after we have broken it on a
>>supposedly supported version.
>
> But there's no suggestion of that.
> The ports tree would take care of itself.
>
> The comment about fixing makefiles refered to the concern about things
> outside of base/ports.

>From your comment, I now understand that we aren't having the same
conversation :)

Please answer me these to check we're on the same page:

Are we planning to replace /usr/bin/make with bmake in the near future?

If yes, what changes are we going to make to the ports tree to ensure
that -CURRENT can still use it?

Chris