[CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:01:27PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 25 October 2012 22:32, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel at xcllnt.net> 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 able to
> >>     get rid of the knob as soon as possible.
> >
> > It is annoying with the magnitude of build-related errors, but I have
> > a workaround.
> >
> >> 2.  More knobs isn't better -- we must have none of the knobs in
> >>     the end, so the more we create, the more work we have to get
> >>     rid of them. That's just more work spent not focusing on the
> >>     task at hand and thus more time wasted.
> >
> > Yes, but not being able to update one's machine makes me sad panda.
> >
> >> In short: this isn't a 2-knob problem by any stretch of the
> >> imagination.
> >
> > 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 supposed to do with his patch. Backwards
> > compatibility will need to be maintained for ports because ports has
> > to work on multiple versions of FreeBSD [where bmake isn't yet
> > available/present], so maybe a fork in the road for bsd.port.mk should
> > be devised in order to make everything work.
> 
> 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 years is simply not an option.
> 
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) to
all available platform which he did.

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.

regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/attachments/20121026/31934bbd/attachment.sig>