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 WITH_BMAKE knob is but a small >> price to pay. So let's work the bmake side and be able to >> get rid of the knob as soon as possible. > > It is annoying with the magnitude of build-related errors, but I have > a workaround. > >> 2. More knobs isn't better -- we must have none of the knobs in >> the end, so the more we create, the more work we have to get >> rid of them. That's just more work spent not focusing on the >> task at hand and thus more time wasted. > > Yes, but not being able to update one's machine makes me sad panda. > >> In short: this isn't a 2-knob problem by any stretch of the >> imagination. > > 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 does what it's supposed to do with his patch. Backwards > compatibility will need to be maintained for ports because ports has > to work on multiple versions of FreeBSD [where bmake isn't yet > available/present], so maybe a fork in the road for bsd.port.mk should > be devised in order to make everything work.
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 bsd.port.mk for years is simply not an option. Have you discussed this on ports@? Chris _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
