>> In particular, why cannot the ':L' and ':U' support be added ?
>
>:U is already used by bmake for something else- I can't remember what, but
>I checked the man page last night :(
http://www.crufty.net/sjg/blog/freebsd-meta-mode.htm
might provide some interesting background.
It is a more FreeBS
>In particular, why cannot the ':L' and ':U' support be added ?
Because they already exist - with different meanings.
They were added to NetBSD make over 10 years ago, from the OSF version
of pmake.
In several areas the behavior of bmake has been changed to make it a
drop in replacement for FreeB
On 10/25/12 23:23, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
In particular, why cannot the ':L' and ':U' support be added ?
Because they already exist - with different meanings.
They were added to NetBSD make over 10 years ago, from the OSF version
of pmake.
In several areas the behavior of bmake has been chang
On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
>> In particular, why cannot the ':L' and ':U' support be added ?
>
> Because they already exist - with different meanings.
> They were added to NetBSD make over 10 years ago, from the OSF version
> of pmake.
And we've had the :U and :L for
On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 08:27 -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
>
> >> In particular, why cannot the ':L' and ':U' support be added ?
> >
> > Because they already exist - with different meanings.
> > They were added to NetBSD make over 10 years ago, f
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 t
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 t
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 07:19:55AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Hmmm... that's one of the 3 approaches I provided, but it turned out
...
> 1. Test programs live with the sources (this was the requested approach), e.g.
> 2. Test programs live in subdirs:
> 3. Test programs completely decoupled fro
On Oct 26, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:27:06 -0600, Warner Losh writes:
>> And we've had the :U and :L for a similar period of time as well. =
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean to imply age has anything to do with it.
> The doc I refered to makes it clear that
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 02:23:06PM -0700, 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.
I'm trying to create an ATF test for f
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 08:27:06 -0600, Warner Losh writes:
>And we've had the :U and :L for a similar period of time as well. =
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply age has anything to do with it.
The doc I refered to makes it clear that the two sets of conflicting
modifers were introduced at about the sa
>with their use of FreeBSD's make in their own projects. So picking a
>good name now would be helpful.
FWIW I keep a copy in /usr/bin/fmake so I can compare behavior.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:41:36AM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> We have to be able to build the same source for multiple versions of
> freebsd, so even finding all the old :U and :L and any other
> incompatibilities and fixing them isn't an option because we'd just
> trade "works in freebsd 10" for "
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:12:44AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> Do be able to get the ports tree working with bmake asap, I also asked
> him to MFC it to 9.1, from latest reply he got positive answer from re@
> about this, but was waiting for something I don't remember.
:tu/:tl is in releng/
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:12:53AM -0700, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:41:46 -0600, Warner Losh writes:
> >It's called a transition period for a reason. The historical use has =
> >permeated itself into many places, not all of which are obvious.
>
> It would seem that leavi
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:41:46 -0600, Warner Losh writes:
>It's called a transition period for a reason. The historical use has =
>permeated itself into many places, not all of which are obvious.
It would seem that leaving FreeBSD make as make, for the transition
period and installing bmake as bma
On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 11:09 -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:41:36AM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > We have to be able to build the same source for multiple versions of
> > freebsd, so even finding all the old :U and :L and any other
> > incompatibilities and fixing them isn't
On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:11 PM, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:12:44AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> Do be able to get the ports tree working with bmake asap, I also asked
>> him to MFC it to 9.1, from latest reply he got positive answer from re@
>> about this, but was wait
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:55:59 -0700, "David O'Brien" writes:
>I'm trying to create an ATF test for filemon, but I don't want to have to
>build make back and forth when I want to build a port.
>Likely that doesn't put me in the "people working on ATF" in your book.
>What can I and others do to work
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:11:52AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:12:44AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > Do be able to get the ports tree working with bmake asap, I also asked
> > him to MFC it to 9.1, from latest reply he got positive answer from re@
> > about this,
On 26 Oct 2012 19:12, "David O'Brien" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:12:44AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > Do be able to get the ports tree working with bmake asap, I also asked
> > him to MFC it to 9.1, from latest reply he got positive answer from re@
> > about this, but was waitin
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:34 AM, David O'Brien 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
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:54 AM, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 07:19:55AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> Hmmm... that's one of the 3 approaches I provided, but it turned out
> ...
>> 1. Test programs live with the sources (this was the requested approach),
>> e.g.
>> 2. Test pro
Minor disambiguation:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
...
> There are some basic examples, but they're in my p4 branch and
> unfortunately they depend on atf.test.mk/bsd.test.mk/bsd.progs.mk
> existing before they can be built (please see the Examples section in
> http:/
On 26 Oct 2012 20:15, "Chris Rees" wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Oct 2012 19:12, "David O'Brien" wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:12:44AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > > Do be able to get the ports tree working with bmake asap, I also asked
> > > him to MFC it to 9.1, from latest reply he go
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:27:35 -0700, Garrett Cooper writes:
>>There are some basic examples, but they're in my p4 branch and
>>unfortunately they depend on atf.test.mk/bsd.test.mk/bsd.progs.mk
>
> Speaking of which. I notice there is no
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:27:35 -0700, Garrett Cooper writes:
>There are some basic examples, but they're in my p4 branch and
>unfortunately they depend on atf.test.mk/bsd.test.mk/bsd.progs.mk
Speaking of which. I notice there is now a bsd.progs.mk in head, which
bears little relationship to the on
On 26 Oct 2012 21:51, "Simon J. Gerraty" wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:00:26 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
> >:L -- seems that bmake's use for this is kinda pointless; returning the
> >name of the variable; we could swap that usage over directly.
>
> Acutally it is very useful.
> The debugging f
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:00:26 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
>:L -- seems that bmake's use for this is kinda pointless; returning the
>name of the variable; we could swap that usage over directly.
Acutally it is very useful.
The debugging facilities in dirdeps.mk rely on it.
The junos build uses it in
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:00:26PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
> :U -- with bmake has non-optional arguments, so for example:
>
> ${VAR:U} - pmake behaviour
>
> ${VAR:Uval} - make behaviour.
>
> Would that be acceptable? I can get a patch in if that's popular.
${VAR:U} is useful for bmake as well
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:34:20AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> (there are no pre-build packages for 10-CURRENT).
Please see the first two entries on:
http://pkgbeta.freebsd.org/
mcl
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:02:00PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2012 21:51, "Simon J. Gerraty" wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:00:26 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
> > >:L -- seems that bmake's use for this is kinda pointless; returning the
> > >name of the variable; we could swap tha
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:02:00 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
>In that case we have a switch time on the order of years, not weeks; 8.3 is
>supported until May '14, and unless we get a :tl etc MFC into 8, even
>longer. All this time the ports tree must work with pmake.
I'm pretty sure I was told it is
When I installed ubuntu on another partition, it overwrote BSD MBR with
grub one.
Now grub boots ubuntu without even asking what to boot.
When I tried to restore BSD MBR, BSD boots but linux doesn't. This is
because there is no bootable PBR in linux partition.
When I tried to install grub into P
34 matches
Mail list logo
