lang/gcc41 - libjava

NAKATA Maho chat95 at
Fri Mar 17 13:11:33 UTC 2006

In Message-ID: <9E058426-CEDE-4090-B6DD-920722C3F1D1 at> 
Ade Lovett <ade at> wrote:

> I'm looking this one over and thinking about it.  Right now, weighing  
> the benefits (fixing 1, maybe 2 ports) against the obvious  
> infrastructure issues that having two gmake ports in the tree, I'm  
> currently of the opinion that it's not really a good solution.

> A considerably more preferable approach would be to put pressure on  
> the gmake folks to get a new release pushed out, with these and other  
> fixes, which can then be set up for an -exp run, and if successful,  
> devel/gmake simply gets punted to a new version where everyone is happy.

gmake-devel port is now RC stage: make-3.81rc1.tar.bz2, and IMHO
we need some time to do extensive tests by changing (just illustrate
how we test)
.if defined(USE_GMAKE)
BUILD_DEPENDS+=         gmake:${PORTSDIR}/devel/gmake
.if defined(USE_GMAKE)
BUILD_DEPENDS+=         gmake-devel:${PORTSDIR}/devel/gmake-devel
CONFIGURE_ENV+= MAKE=gmake-devel

so my opinion is:
committing gmake-devel saves at least gcc-4.1 with java, and port. In terms of release enginnering, we can
test easily, even by casual committer like me, not by Kris.
if everthing is okay we can put the new version.
BTW: time stamp at of make-3.80.tar.bz2
2002/10/04  	00:00:00
three years have passed since it it released, so I'm quite
sure there are a lot of brekage with make-3.81. IMHO
we need both make for a while.

All the best,
-- NAKATA, Maho (maho at

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list