Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:05:10 -0600 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: dougb@FreeBSD.org Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [HEADS UP] GNU make 3.82 Message-ID: <20110311050510.GA16469@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <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> <1150BA48-1B1D-4C8E-9059-ADF5CE2C494C@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I answered this question last night on IRC, aDe answered it in email: > What is the urgency in upgrading gmake that prevents "fix the broken > ports first" as an option to at least explore? Now that gmake is out, if the past is any indication, some project will quickly upgrade to it. We can wait for that to happen, and then have to scramble, or we can get ahead of the curve. Not every single change to the Ports Collection rises to the level of requiring a committee meeting to generate a consensus. IMHO this does not. In this case it was "here is someone willing to do the work, here's an action plan, let's just do it." I've already spent nearly as much time arguing with you as I had spent running the initial -exp run (more, if you exclude the work I did to update the processonelog script), so I'm done here. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110311050510.GA16469>