On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 09:11:29AM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> two independent efforts (ATF & bmake) and there was no indication that
> one would be greatly benefitted from the other. At least not to the
> point of creating a dependency.
It seems we do have the situation where folks feel ther
On 25 October 2012 22:15, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 09:11:29AM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>> two independent efforts (ATF & bmake) and there was no indication that
>> one would be greatly benefitted from the other. At least not to the
>> point of creating a dependency.
>
>
On Oct 25, 2012, at 2:15 PM, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 09:11:29AM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>> two independent efforts (ATF & bmake) and there was no indication that
>> one would be greatly benefitted from the other. At least not to the
>> point of creating a dependency
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Marcel Moolenaar 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 abl
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
...
> 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 sup
On 25 October 2012 22:32, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Marcel Moolenaar 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
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:01:27PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 25 October 2012 22:32, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> I think there are 2 reasons why not to:
> >>
> >> 1. The people working on ATF have not raised this conc
On 25 October 2012 18:12, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> Not much test has been done on the ports tree about it, from what I have
> tested
> so far, except from the :tu :tl difference the ports seems to work ootb with
> both bmake and make, I asked obrien to MFC the support for :tl :tu in make(1)
>
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Chris Rees wrote:
...
> 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 yea
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:21:59 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
>We really aren't going to have any luck yet...
>
>[crees@pegasus]/usr/ports% sudo make MAKE=/usr/bin/bmake index |& head
If anyone is eager to play with this, I just have put a copy of
ports2bmake.tar.gz in ~sjg/ on freefall.
This contains
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:21:59PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 25 October 2012 22:15, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 09:11:29AM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> >> two independent efforts (ATF & bmake) and there was no indication that
> >> one would be greatly benefitted from t
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:01:27 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
>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.
There is no need/plan for two versions of bsd.p
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:53:53PM -0700, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:01:27 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
> >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 yea
On 26 Oct 2012 06:01, "Konstantin Belousov" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:53:53PM -0700, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:01:27 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
> > >Is there a Wiki page where the actual benefits of moving to bmake are
> > >made clear? This is a major, *maj
14 matches
Mail list logo
