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

[Konstantin Belousov]

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:53:53PM -0700, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:01:27 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
> >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.
> 
> There is no need/plan for two versions of bsd.port.mk, the patch I just
> mentioned, deals with older systems by detecting that bmake was not
> used, and using it (installing if need be).  
> 
> >Have you discussed this on ports@?
> 
> I have not at least.  
> This was discussed at the last couple of BSDCan's and dev summits.
> 
> The original plan discussed at BSDCan a couple of years ago, was to
> allow bmake and the old make to cooexist for some time so that ports
> could continue to use the old make.
> 
> At the last BSDCan we were told that wasn't an option - hence the patch
> to ports that was mentioned.
> 
> FWIW the changes to 99.9% of the ports tree are trivial (:L -> :tl etc).
> The only interesting changes are to bsd.port.mk (the diff other than the
> above is 54 lines) they cover 2 things - dealing with old make as
> mentioned above, and man pages.  The nested .for loops that deal
> with MLINKS are replaced with one line - this was safer that attempting
> to hack those .for loops to work with both makes.

I am watching the serial for some time.  Could please, someone, describe
why bmake cannot grow the compat features to be a drop-in replacement for
FreeBSD make, instead of patching all the trees ?

In particular, why cannot the ':L' and ':U' support be added ?
-------------- 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-arch/attachments/20121026/0e8b9133/attachment.sig>