Re: [RFC] Removin the old make
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 05:47:27PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: On Fri, 2015-02-13 at 01:24 +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:49:13AM +0100, Julian H. Stacey wrote: Hi, I would like to start using bmake only syntax on our infrastructure for tha= t I want to make sure noone is using the old make, so I plan to remove the old = .^^ make =66rom base, I plan to do it by Feb 16th. Note that bmake is the default since FreeBSD 10. FreeBSD 9.3 is also providing bmake (as bmake) on default installation. Best regards, Bapt I don't know the difference, but it seems potentialy dangerous to remove old make without notice ? Old make was already removed in 10.x what remains is only the sources and that is what I propose to remove from 11 (and only from 11) Best regards, Bapt fmake exists as a port too, doesn't it? That's what I vaguely remember as the plan... bmake available in 9, it's the default in 10 but fmake source is still around, and then in 11 fmake is gone from base but available as a port. Yes it is in port for sure. Bapt pgp71bjqKARME.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [RFC] Removin the old make
Ian Lepore i...@freebsd.org wrote:
under bmake. It's especially annoying because :L is really common in
fmake and its meaning in bmake is all but useless.
Actually it is very useful. eg.
.if defined(NO_POSIX_SHELL) || ${type printf:L:sh:Mbuiltin} ==
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [RFC] Removin the old make
Hi, I would like to start using bmake only syntax on our infrastructure for tha= t I want to make sure noone is using the old make, so I plan to remove the old = .^^ make =66rom base, I plan to do it by Feb 16th. Note that bmake is the default since FreeBSD 10. FreeBSD 9.3 is also providing bmake (as bmake) on default installation. Best regards, Bapt I don't know the difference, but it seems potentialy dangerous to remove old make without notice ? In FreeBSD-9.3 : bmake is not default, merely there -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 518032 Nov 5 16:58 /usr/bin/bmake* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 453176 Nov 5 16:58 /usr/bin/make* man make has No Warning people should migrate to bmake. FreeBSD-10.0 Has Only one /usr/bin/*make ( no make.old) No warning that it's a new make called bmake or what if any differences might be from make in 9. cd ~ ; find . -type f -name Makefile | wc -l# 739 Use of FreeBSD is not merely to rebuild FreeBSD, but to support users who want to trust FreeBSD to provide predictable functional stability. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Linux Unix C Sys Eng Consultant Munich http://berklix.com Indent previous with . Interleave reply paragraphs like a play script. Send plain text, not quoted-printable, HTML, base64, or multipart/alternative. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [RFC] Removin the old make
On Fri, 2015-02-13 at 01:24 +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:49:13AM +0100, Julian H. Stacey wrote: Hi, I would like to start using bmake only syntax on our infrastructure for tha= t I want to make sure noone is using the old make, so I plan to remove the old = .^^ make =66rom base, I plan to do it by Feb 16th. Note that bmake is the default since FreeBSD 10. FreeBSD 9.3 is also providing bmake (as bmake) on default installation. Best regards, Bapt I don't know the difference, but it seems potentialy dangerous to remove old make without notice ? Old make was already removed in 10.x what remains is only the sources and that is what I propose to remove from 11 (and only from 11) Best regards, Bapt fmake exists as a port too, doesn't it? That's what I vaguely remember as the plan... bmake available in 9, it's the default in 10 but fmake source is still around, and then in 11 fmake is gone from base but available as a port. -- Ian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [RFC] Removin the old make
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:49:13AM +0100, Julian H. Stacey wrote: Hi, I would like to start using bmake only syntax on our infrastructure for tha= t I want to make sure noone is using the old make, so I plan to remove the old = .^^ make =66rom base, I plan to do it by Feb 16th. Note that bmake is the default since FreeBSD 10. FreeBSD 9.3 is also providing bmake (as bmake) on default installation. Best regards, Bapt I don't know the difference, but it seems potentialy dangerous to remove old make without notice ? Old make was already removed in 10.x what remains is only the sources and that is what I propose to remove from 11 (and only from 11) Best regards, Bapt pgpw8H6hj1y0w.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [RFC] Removin the old make
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Julian H. Stacey j...@berklix.com wrote: In FreeBSD-9.3 : bmake is not default, merely there -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 518032 Nov 5 16:58 /usr/bin/bmake* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 453176 Nov 5 16:58 /usr/bin/make* man make has No Warning people should migrate to bmake. FreeBSD-10.0 Has Only one /usr/bin/*make ( no make.old) No warning that it's a new make called bmake or what if any differences might be from make in 9. Well, there was *some* warning in the release notes: https://www.freebsd.org/releases/9.3R/relnotes.html https://www.freebsd.org/releases/10.0R/relnotes.html Of course, the fmake/bmake changes are buried in a whole pile of other changes, so users may have found this easy to miss. It's hard to describe the impacts of changes like this, and have readable release notes. Oh well. :( -- Craig ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [RFC] Removin the old make
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 17:47:27 -0700 Ian Lepore i...@freebsd.org wrote On Fri, 2015-02-13 at 01:24 +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:49:13AM +0100, Julian H. Stacey wrote: Hi, I would like to start using bmake only syntax on our infrastructure for tha= t I want to make sure noone is using the old make, so I plan to remove the old = .^^ make =66rom base, I plan to do it by Feb 16th. Note that bmake is the default since FreeBSD 10. FreeBSD 9.3 is also providing bmake (as bmake) on default installation. Best regards, Bapt I don't know the difference, but it seems potentialy dangerous to remove old make without notice ? Old make was already removed in 10.x what remains is only the sources and that is what I propose to remove from 11 (and only from 11) Best regards, Bapt fmake exists as a port too, doesn't it? That's what I vaguely remember as the plan... bmake available in 9, it's the default in 10 but fmake source is still around, and then in 11 fmake is gone from base but available as a port. If that's the case. It all hardly seems worth an announcement. Nothing's lost, and everyone wins. :) --Chris -- Ian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [RFC] Removin the old make
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? Greg -- Sent from my desktop computer. Finger g...@freebsd.org for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft MUA reports problems, please read http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua pgp_RZIFijEsv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [RFC] Removin the old make
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 pgpx_C4PWzPwI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [RFC] Removin the old make
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
Re: [RFC] Removin the old make
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 23:38:54 +0100 Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org 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. Please note; I am not expressing any objection to it's removal. But would a 30-day window not be a more friendly. So as to better accommodate those whom will need to make the/a transition? --Chris Note that bmake is the default since FreeBSD 10. FreeBSD 9.3 is also providing bmake (as bmake) on default installation. Best regards, Bapt ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [RFC] Removin the old make
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. -- Ian ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: [RFC] Removin the old make
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:13:29PM -0800, Chris H wrote: On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 23:38:54 +0100 Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org 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. Please note; I am not expressing any objection to it's removal. But would a 30-day window not be a more friendly. So as to better accommodate those whom will need to make the/a transition? What transition, since 10.0 noone have fmake by default anymore? if one want to keep using fmake he has to explicitly state it when building. Not that I'm against a 30-day windows but that does not seems worth it. Best regards, Bapt pgpqXT4WP4T50.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [RFC] Removin the old make
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:20:05 +0100 Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org wrote On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:13:29PM -0800, Chris H wrote: On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 23:38:54 +0100 Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org 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. Please note; I am not expressing any objection to it's removal. But would a 30-day window not be a more friendly. So as to better accommodate those whom will need to make the/a transition? What transition, since 10.0 noone have fmake by default anymore? if one want to keep using fmake he has to explicitly state it when building. Ahh. Sure. In all honesty, it was probably more of a knee jerk reaction on my part, when I noticed it was only a week away. :) Not that I'm against a 30-day windows but that does not seems worth it. Best regards, Bapt --Chris -- ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
