On Mar 10, 2011, at 14:21 , Doug Barton wrote: > What I'm suggesting is that the URL for the logs of that run get posted here, > along with contacting the maintainers of the affected ports. Then let's see > what people have to say about getting them fixed sooner rather than later. > Can you explain why doing that would be a bad idea?
Those 50 or so ports are not the complete picture. Some of them are preventing other ports from being built. So, we cycle through an -exp run adding USE_GMAKE=381 (it's not a library or anything, just an executable, and in the context of clean building, only one or the other will exist for a specific port -exp build, so there's no question of interaction) until we have _all_ of the affected ports. Then the list gets posted somewhere, USE_GMAKE=381 goes active, then there's a period (6-7 months) for folks to clean things up, at which point USE_GMAKE=381 does exactly the same as USE_GMAKE=yes (use gmake-3.82) -- ports that get fixed after this date simply change USE_GMAKE=381 -> USE_GMAKE=yes (cosmetic change only), and a list of known-broken ports can still be determined by grepping for 'USE_GMAKE=381'. If updates to those ports fix them, change USE_GMAKE back to 'yes'. > I admire your optimism, however experience tells us that once these types of > accomodations get into the tree, they stay there for a long time. There is no issue of optimism about it. gmake-3.82 _will_ be the sole version of GNU make in the tree by (at latest) the end of this year. -aDe _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
