[HEADS UP] GNU make 3.82

b. f. bf1783 at googlemail.com
Sun Mar 13 02:46:32 UTC 2011

On 3/13/11, Ade Lovett <ade at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2011, at 17:22 , b. f. wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:14:50PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>>>> There are way too many things happening "in private" around here and
>>>> the only way to solve that problem is to open the doors.
>>> Would you please offer examples of decisions that you feel that way
>>> about?
>> We need not look any farther than this episode to see an example of
>> how things could have been handled better.  I don't think that the
>> course of action that was ultimately adopted was unreasonable, but did
>> we have to wait from the 8 October, when I filed
>> ports/151312
> I quote from the PR log:
>   State-Changed-From-To: open->suspended
>   State-Changed-By: ade
>   State-Changed-When: Fri Oct 8 16:40:29 UTC 2010
>   State-Changed-Why:
>   gnu make 3.81 -> 3.82 is, sadly, exceptionally non-trivial.  A number of
>   features present in releases prior to 3.82 are technically "wrong", and
>   this release has corrected them.  A _lot_ of stuff breaks.  It will be
>   looked at, but don't hold your breath.
> Plenty of other stuff was happening in autotools-land at the time.  We had
> already run a previous preliminary analysis of gmake 3.81->3.82 and it was
> _not_ pretty.
> That update to the PR took just a little under 2 hours from initial
> submission.  Suggesting that it took until March 11th is disingenuous at
> _best_

Your response, though initially prompt, doesn't contain any
information, like that in Mark's recent message, that allows us to
help solve any problems.  As far as I can tell, you have not provided
any specific results throughout the course of this update, even when
repeatedly asked to do so.  I did not follow up on this matter
earlier, because I knew other, more pressing problems were being
addressed, because I was myself busy, and because I saw no particular
urgency to this update.  I filed the ports/151312 as a reminder and a
point-of-reference for progress reports on the update, probably for
the same reasons that you later filed the duplicate ports/155215.  I
don't object to the course of action you proposed, and I understand
that you and others have freely invested time and effort into this and
other updates.  But I think that the manner of your replies on this
list and elsewhere has been unfortunate, even allowing for the fact
that you may have been given some provocation.  We expect and need
more concrete information, and fewer ad hominem arguments and requests
to defer to your judgment for unspecified or vague reasons.  And now I
think that we should bring this argument to a close, because we have
spent too much time and energy on this matter, and aroused too much
rancor, when we could have been doing more useful work.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list