lang/gcc41 - libjava

Kris Kennaway kris at
Fri Mar 17 17:39:48 UTC 2006

On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 10:11:27PM +0900, NAKATA Maho wrote:
> 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)
> /usr/ports/Mk/
> .if defined(USE_GMAKE)
> BUILD_DEPENDS+=         gmake:${PORTSDIR}/devel/gmake
> .endif
> ->
> .if defined(USE_GMAKE)
> BUILD_DEPENDS+=         gmake-devel:${PORTSDIR}/devel/gmake-devel
> CONFIGURE_ENV+= MAKE=gmake-devel
> .endif
> 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.

Send me a patch that makes the new gmake used by default and I'll run
it through a package build to see how it goes.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list