On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:53:53PM -0700, Simon J. Gerraty wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:01:27 +0100, Chris Rees writes: > >Is there a Wiki page where the actual benefits of moving to bmake are > >made clear? This is a major, *major* upheaval, and having two > >versions of bsd.port.mk for years is simply not an option. > > There is no need/plan for two versions of bsd.port.mk, the patch I just > mentioned, deals with older systems by detecting that bmake was not > used, and using it (installing if need be). > > >Have you discussed this on ports@? > > I have not at least. > This was discussed at the last couple of BSDCan's and dev summits. > > The original plan discussed at BSDCan a couple of years ago, was to > allow bmake and the old make to cooexist for some time so that ports > could continue to use the old make. > > At the last BSDCan we were told that wasn't an option - hence the patch > to ports that was mentioned. > > FWIW the changes to 99.9% of the ports tree are trivial (:L -> :tl etc). > The only interesting changes are to bsd.port.mk (the diff other than the > above is 54 lines) they cover 2 things - dealing with old make as > mentioned above, and man pages. The nested .for loops that deal > with MLINKS are replaced with one line - this was safer that attempting > to hack those .for loops to work with both makes.
I am watching the serial for some time. Could please, someone, describe why bmake cannot grow the compat features to be a drop-in replacement for FreeBSD make, instead of patching all the trees ? In particular, why cannot the ':L' and ':U' support be added ?
pgpZs4ID2dTbM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
