2012/10/25 Pedro Giffuni p...@freebsd.org
(cc'ing -ports and cutting most of the rest)
From: Eitan Adler
.
On 24 October 2012 13:24, Fernando Apesteguía wrote:
Also related to that, what about writing a section about redports[1]
in the porter's handbook[2]?
This is a good
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 09:11:29AM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
two independent efforts (ATF bmake) and there was no indication that
one would be greatly benefitted from the other. At least not to the
point of creating a dependency.
It seems we do have the situation where folks feel there
On 25 October 2012 22:15, David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 09:11:29AM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
two independent efforts (ATF bmake) and there was no indication that
one would be greatly benefitted from the other. At least not to the
point of creating a
On Oct 25, 2012, at 2:15 PM, David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 09:11:29AM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
two independent efforts (ATF bmake) and there was no indication that
one would be greatly benefitted from the other. At least not to the
point of creating a
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Marcel Moolenaar mar...@xcllnt.net wrote:
...
I think there are 2 reasons why not to:
1. The people working on ATF have not raised this concern and
have expressed that using the WITH_BMAKE knob is but a small
price to pay. So let's work the bmake
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Garrett Cooper yaneg...@gmail.com wrote:
...
The real issue is that I need to take the patch Simon developed, run
with it, and in parallel he needs to -- and hopefully already is --
engage portmgr to get it through a number of exp- runs to make sure
bmake
On 25 October 2012 22:32, Garrett Cooper yaneg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Marcel Moolenaar mar...@xcllnt.net wrote:
...
I think there are 2 reasons why not to:
1. The people working on ATF have not raised this concern and
have expressed that using the
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:01:27PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
On 25 October 2012 22:32, Garrett Cooper yaneg...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Marcel Moolenaar mar...@xcllnt.net wrote:
...
I think there are 2 reasons why not to:
1. The people working on ATF have
On 25 October 2012 18:12, Baptiste Daroussin b...@freebsd.org wrote:
Not much test has been done on the ports tree about it, from what I have
tested
so far, except from the :tu :tl difference the ports seems to work ootb with
both bmake and make, I asked obrien to MFC the support for :tl :tu
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Chris Rees cr...@freebsd.org wrote:
...
Now you've terrified me, and probably most other ports people too.
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
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:21:59 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
We really aren't going to have any luck yet...
[crees@pegasus]/usr/ports% sudo make MAKE=/usr/bin/bmake index | head
If anyone is eager to play with this, I just have put a copy of
ports2bmake.tar.gz in ~sjg/ on freefall.
This contains a
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:21:59PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
On 25 October 2012 22:15, David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 09:11:29AM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
two independent efforts (ATF bmake) and there was no indication that
one would be greatly
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
