On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:34 AM, David O'Brien <obr...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:00:21PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: >> Here's an updated version of the workaround that works properly in all >> cases and installs bmake as make and links make to pmake when >> WITH_BMAKE=yes, and installs make as make when WITHOUT_BMAKE is >> specified (this works better than the previous patch I sent to Simon). > > Garrett, > I don't see how this could be committed -- it will make it difficult > for 10-CURRENT folks to build ports (and there are no pre-build packages > for 10-CURRENT).
I don't want it committed because Simon's move makes sense longterm: I wanted to offer an alternative as opposed to just being stuck in purgatory and figured that others might benefit from it. We're stuck at a point now that we need to make a break but we also need to ensure that we don't break things too badly for users with older versions of make. Installing our version of make as something other than `make` would at least allow us to use make as pmake in ports, but I realized it would requiring hacking around portmaster, portupgrade, and a number of other tools that expect FreeBSD make to be make and don't have a means of parameterizing make in the environment or on the command line. So looking back now my mitigation solution would not be ideal and would not fix any problems really. > Are you not able to use this instead (w/"WANT_USRBIN_BMAKE=" in > /etc/src.conf)? That would be interesting too (and is a lot less involved than my patch), and probably would have less fallout. Thanks! -Garrett _______________________________________________ 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"
