make vs. gmake in 6-CURRENT...
Chuck Swiger
cswiger at mac.com
Thu Dec 16 14:13:10 PST 2004
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
[ ... ]
> Revision 1.16 of the port Makefile doesn't build a growisofs executable.
It doesn't? Ah, thank you, I see:
[ ... ]
c++ -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -fno-exceptions -c -o growisofs_mmc.o
growisofs_mmc.cpp
cc -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -c -o growisofs.o growisofs.c
c++ -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -fno-exceptions -c -o dvd+rw-format.o
dvd+rw-format.cpp
...under 6, versus this under 4.10:
c++ -O -pipe -fno-exceptions -c -o growisofs_mmc.o growisofs_mmc.cpp
cc -O -pipe -c -o growisofs.o growisofs.c
c++ -O -pipe -fno-exceptions -o growisofs growisofs_mmc.o growisofs.o -lcam
c++ -O -pipe -fno-exceptions -c -o dvd+rw-format.o dvd+rw-format.cpp
OK.
> If we don't have the ability to reorganize things within the distfile
> (because, e.g. the creator of dvd+rw-tools distfile does not target just
> FreeBSD), using gmake seems to be the way to go.
I don't have an objection to depending on gmake, but I would prefer not to add
dependencies which are not really necessary. In other words, I'd still like
to know what changed in make from FreeBSD-4 & 5 to 6. :-)
As to the author, he's been reasonably responsive to adding an env variable or
two to facilitate FreeBSD port preferences (such as not installing setuid by
default) and to using ?= rather than = in defining CC and such.
The port's primary audience is Linux, but FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD,
Solaris, etc, are all recognized as supported platforms.
--
-Chuck
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list