On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 04:04:16PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 23:59 +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:49:37AM +1100, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 10 February 2015 at 23:38:54 +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I would like to start using bmake only syntax on our infrastructure for > > > > that I > > > > want to make sure noone is using the old make, so I plan to remove the > > > > old make > > > > from base, I plan to do it by Feb 16th. > > > > > > How does this affect non-system Makefiles that depend on pmake? Is > > > bmake completely upward compatible? > > > > There are very few issues, not that fmake is available from ports, I think > > 99% > > of the compatibility are preserved I know about a couple of > > incompatibilities > > that are bothering me in ports (for the infrastructure) but I would say > > this is > > very much a corner case > > > > Bapt > > By far the biggest incompatibility I've run into is the change from :U > and :L to :tu and :tl, mostly because any existing makefiles that > contain :U or :L variable modifiers just silently do the wrong thing > under bmake. It's especially annoying because :L is really common in > fmake and its meaning in bmake is all but useless. > Ah yes I forgot that one :) which is the reason why I have blocked migration to bmake for a while :)
Still fmake is available via ports so might not be a problem Best regards, Bapt
pgp_NXinKGWCc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
