wrote Chuck Swiger thusly... > > Parv wrote: > [ ... ] > >Port making will fail if you keep ports trees updated at least due > >to use of new make(1) syntax introduced, in 4.9, in a port's > >Makefile. The problem i noticed was related to use of parenthesis > >in ".if ... .endif" structure. > > Thanks for the response, Parv, but ugh! I cringe at the notion that > continually tweaking make and the port Makefiles causes problems > with backwards compatibility to a still-supported FreeBSD release.
That looks like the message that i sent to one of the FreeBSD lists. After searching PR database, it seems somebody else found the exact reason... http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/60288 I think life w/ NetBSD would not be so bad via its FreeBSD ports equivalent "pkgsrc". One other known benefit, via pkgviews, is that multiple versions of a particular an be simultaneously installed/used at the cost of use of many symbolic links. Here are some things on pkgsrc ... http://www.NetBSD.org/~jlam/pkgsrcCon/presentations.html http://www.NetBSD.org/Documentation/pkgsrc/ http://www.NetBSD.org/Documentation/software/packages.html http://www.NetBSD.org/Documentation/software/pkgviews.pdf The last time i read papers/slides listed on "pkgsrcCon", ugly symbolic links would have been the only problem for me after the problem of potentially missing ported software that i currently use on FreeBSD. (No, i have not checked the pkgsrc list). Mind you that i have no experience of NetBSD or pkgsrc, so both may have their own problems currently unknown to me. - Parv -- _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
