|Ade Lovett||Mar 10, 2011 9:43 am|
|Doug Barton||Mar 10, 2011 11:24 am|
|Ade Lovett||Mar 10, 2011 12:05 pm|
|Doug Barton||Mar 10, 2011 12:20 pm|
|Ade Lovett||Mar 10, 2011 12:52 pm|
|Doug Barton||Mar 10, 2011 1:01 pm|
|Mark Linimon||Mar 10, 2011 2:52 pm|
|Mark Linimon||Mar 10, 2011 3:54 pm|
|Robert Huff||Mar 10, 2011 4:01 pm|
|Doug Barton||Mar 10, 2011 4:09 pm|
|Ade Lovett||Mar 10, 2011 7:45 pm|
|Doug Barton||Mar 10, 2011 8:01 pm|
|Mark Linimon||Mar 10, 2011 9:04 pm|
|Ade Lovett||Mar 10, 2011 9:24 pm|
|Doug Barton||Mar 11, 2011 9:14 pm|
|Jeremy Messenger||Mar 12, 2011 9:47 am|
|Jeremy Messenger||Mar 12, 2011 10:13 am|
|Christian Weisgerber||Mar 12, 2011 10:40 am|
|Ade Lovett||Mar 12, 2011 11:03 am|
|Mark Linimon||Mar 12, 2011 12:44 pm|
|Doug Barton||Mar 12, 2011 1:34 pm|
|Michal Varga||Mar 12, 2011 1:46 pm|
|Mark Linimon||Mar 12, 2011 1:47 pm|
|Michal Varga||Mar 12, 2011 1:51 pm|
|Doug Barton||Mar 12, 2011 1:54 pm|
|Doug Barton||Mar 12, 2011 1:55 pm|
|b. f.||Mar 12, 2011 3:21 pm|
|Mark Linimon||Mar 12, 2011 3:51 pm|
|Ade Lovett||Mar 12, 2011 4:00 pm|
|Rob Farmer||Mar 12, 2011 5:13 pm|
|Mark Linimon||Mar 12, 2011 5:45 pm|
|Mark Linimon||Mar 12, 2011 5:46 pm|
|Doug Barton||Mar 12, 2011 5:47 pm|
|Mark Linimon||Mar 12, 2011 5:47 pm|
|Mark Linimon||Mar 12, 2011 5:59 pm|
|Doug Barton||Mar 12, 2011 6:30 pm|
|b. f.||Mar 12, 2011 6:45 pm|
|Ade Lovett||Mar 12, 2011 7:46 pm|
|Peter Jeremy||Mar 13, 2011 2:27 pm|
|Mark Linimon||Mar 13, 2011 5:30 pm|
|Ade Lovett||Mar 13, 2011 8:44 pm|
|Matthias Andree||Mar 15, 2011 4:12 am|
|Subject:||Re: [HEADS UP] GNU make 3.82|
|From:||Matthias Andree (mand...@FreeBSD.org)|
|Date:||Mar 15, 2011 4:12:02 am|
Am 14.03.2011 04:45, schrieb Ade Lovett:
On Mar 13, 2011, at 16:27 , Peter Jeremy wrote:
Having read through this thread, it is still unclear to me why it is not possible to fix up the problematic ports before importing gmake 3.82, removing the need for a gmake381 port.
I believe Mark has offered up, on multiple occasions a wiki page from the
_first_ exp run.
Of course, if port "A" fails as a result of gmake (or, quite frankly, whatever),
and it has dependent ports, then unti such time as the proverbial "quick hack"
to unbreak it, we have absolutely no idea of the carnage further down the tree.
devel/gmake381 exists for one reason, and one reason only. To allow -exp runs
to fully test what breaks, and what doesn't with a devel/gmake being 3.82.
You'll notice that it is not attached to the build (in devel/Makefile) and it is
also marked IGNORE. Using a few extra inodes in order to be able to properly
test things (you should also note that USE_GMAKE=381 is merely part of an -exp
patchset, and not present in the existing Mk/bsd.port.mk) is a minor cost for
substantial gains when actually running said -exp runs.
Could this have been handled better. Sure, maybe. But it would require
*proactive* work within the community as opposed to the "you're doing it wrong"
*reactive* mentality. It's easy to criticize. Much harder to do work that
affects thousand of ports and, in the best case, no-one actually sees a change.
I've been reading this discussion on and off and trying to get on top of the facts to make up my own mind.
Looks like people who have done the work (Ade and Mark) first didn't know the exact implications of non-triviality of the task, and have now become defensive, and Doug has become frustrated about a perceived lack of information -- that I have shared for a couple of days, until the Wiki address crossed my Inbox, possibly for the 2nd time.
I think we all agree that we have learnt a bit from how things happened, and people involved in the frame-work and -exp runs will probably do things differently the next time around.
You all are in what I'd call a violent agreement, and it's naturally easier to criticise with hindsight.
However, please let's quit the defending now and get productive again, and please share information about possible framework breakage sooner.
As much as we would have liked the GNU make maintainers to call this "pick up the shards" release 4.00, this hasn't happened, and we've got to deal with it, and work is underway to achieve just that.
What I've understood is that the first -exp run didn't get us the whole picture and thus the gmake381 hack was added to get an overview and cut the dependency tree short -- but nonetheless it is useful to start the job of fixing gmake 3.82 incompatibilities while 2nd, 3rd, 4th -exp passes proceed. I've also seen that there are volunteers, such as maintainers and unaffiliated contributors who are always willing to lend a hand, have been trying to sort things out for gmake 3.82.
Of course being more transparent and open with information can cause anxiety, but if more people take interest in an issue, things get understood and fixed sooner. The only remaining question is whether a policy needs to be established to do such -exp things openly in general, or if it was just a lack of proactive communication as a one-time event that will not happen again anyways. And I'd rather not overengineer.
Anyways, I see *chance there* for the -exp and autotools and gmake janitors to share a bit of their task "get gmake3.82 in ports to fly" workload on more shoulders.
-- Matthias Andree
_______________________________________________ free...@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "free...@freebsd.org"