On 28 October 2012 19:11, Simon J. Gerraty <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 14:06:41 +0000, Chris Rees writes: >>Are we planning to replace /usr/bin/make with bmake in the near future? > > That was what I heard, but any such move is dependent on dealing with > ports. The ~sjg/ports2bmake.tar.gz on freefall is the plan I came up > with after the above "requirement" was introduced at last BSDCan. > >>If yes, what changes are we going to make to the ports tree to ensure >>that -CURRENT can still use it? > > If you mean -current (aka head); the plan is to convert ports to bmake > syntax wrt to the 2 conflicting modifiers. At my last test there are > just under 300 makefiles in ports that use the old modifiers. > > Now for < head (ie. /usr/bin/make is an old version), the above ports > tree detects that bmake is not being used, and invokes a shell script > (bmake-sh) to do what was asked. > > That script will look for bmake and if necessary build/install it. > To do that, it creates a temp copy of Mk/*.mk converted back to the old > syntax so that the old make can build and install bmake, and then the > old system is on par with -current. > > That's what I meant by "ports will take care of itself". > The main gap btw in the above, is if a user who does not have privs to > install bmake, is the only person trying to do something with ports. > > The above plan needs to be approved by portmgr, and obviouslty a test > run of building all ports is needed (possibly more than one). > > Does that help?
Certainly, thank you. I didn't find it clear when inspecting the tarball (obviously I hadn't read the README clearly enough). I'm going to have to echo John's non-obvious comment however, and I think it would be very helpful to have a clear public writeup, perhaps Q&A style to allay any other such fears. Chris _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
