On 03/10/2011 12:52, Ade Lovett wrote:
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,
Great!
USE_GMAKE=381 goes active,
That's the bit that we disagree on, but your unwillingness to answer the
question I've posed twice now tells me clearly that you are determined
to follow this course of action, so I give up.
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.
You've already slipped your deadline from 6 months firm, to 6-7 months,
now to 9 months in the course of just a few emails. I'd be willing to
wager $BEVERAGE of your choice that we enter 2012 with multiple gmakes
in the ports tree. But like I said, I'd be glad to be proven wrong. :)
Doug
--
Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go
Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
_______________________________________________
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"
