Re: Porting patch(1) from NetBSD to FreeBSD (was Re: FreeBSD in Google Code-In 2012? You can help too!)

[Xin Li]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Hi,

On 10/27/12 2:17 PM, hiren panchasara wrote:
> [removing the CC list]
> 
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Pedro Giffuni 
> wrote:
> 
>> (cc'ing -ports and cutting most of the rest)
>> 
>>> From: Eitan Adler
>> .>
>>> On 24 October 2012 13:24, Fernando Apesteguía wrote:
 Also related to that, what about writing a section about
 redports[1] in the porter's handbook[2]?
>>> 
>>> This is a good documentation task... but we need more *coding*
>>> tasks as
>> well.
>>> 
>> 
>> We do need to port and test patch (1) from NetBSD or DragonFly to
>> replace GNU patch, and this shouldn't be difficult.
>> 
> 
> Hi Pedro / List,
> 
> I am not part of google summer of code but I've tried to port
> patch(1) from NetBSD into FreeBSD head. I hope that is okay.
> 
> Patching was trivial and It _seems_ to be working fine.
> 
> I would appreciate any ideas around how to test the changes and how
> to proceed further.

I've a version of OpenBSD patch(1) at:

http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/user/delphij/patch/

But I don't have much time to work on it lately, so I wouldn't mind if
someone more energized to take over the lead :)

Note that if this is intended to replace the current FreeBSD half-GNU
patch(1), please make sure that the features are all in your version
before proceeding.

Cheers,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJQjLx4AAoJEG80Jeu8UPuzfsgIAKRpxxX2+KYHeHNCiFOVOyd4
V39XPaVocxHajjtGagWTZ4VfFWKhWMwz2vl94wjApkBpDGpE6Vt6/17g8xyAZJ4a
krNF+TobXR2LFjUffDgKBNwouwqxnaPk1fm3M0+HJJPCc+O79Im5pEZfOf3J1atV
k4Z2qliYjphPXUFjq/6+vUWPt2N35OyxQAtDJrRWGD6j8sKE/uzmGF4jIKibY0Sx
Z5wx3q06xdXpvHFFqKU7AZvTu0Jz22S2MEMTV+0OJdOAka8BDWsM9UwIlSdD90VT
VgWjv3M0+eZLa7vxhXEzEw/uLfeDsBmuT7zq6CUHFRaMvVGLN99yZu97tpwvy6E=
=sHUs
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Porting patch(1) from NetBSD to FreeBSD (was Re: FreeBSD in Google Code-In 2012? You can help too!)

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hi;

On 10/27/2012 22:08, hiren panchasara wrote:



On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Pedro Giffuni > wrote:


Hello Hiren;



On 10/27/2012 16:48, hiren panchasara wrote:



...



This is great news Hiren, Thanks!


The stress test for this utility is the ports tree but before that
we have to
know what will change.

Thanks Pedro!
I will have  a lot of questions as I am a newbie here. :-)


What needs to be done is:

1- Compare the options between our old patch and the new BSD patch.

Will do.

2- Document this in FreeBSD's wiki.

I think this needs to be done when we are done deciding on diffs and 
how the changes look, right?

Also, I do not think I have write access to the wiki.


Well, I am hoping that we don't have to do any hacking on patch to be
acceptable but having a table like this would be nice:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/SOC2010BenFiedler

This is mandatory though, just planning ahead.




3- Prepare a port for testing.

Does this need to be a port? I thought this would live in 
/src/usr.bin/patch.
Also, I believe this will co-exist with current gnu patch(1). Is that 
a right assumption?




We like to be safe and having it in the ports tree makes it easier to
test it on all FreeBSD versions and platforms before it finds it's way
into the base system. I know this sounds like a long tedious process
but we have a reputation to take care of ;).

Creating a new port of this is really easy though; you can probably start
with the bsd sort port as a template and check porter's handbook
if there is any doubt.

Let us know if you need to a place to put of the tarball.


Pedro.


___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Porting patch(1) from NetBSD to FreeBSD (was Re: FreeBSD in Google Code-In 2012? You can help too!)

[hiren panchasara]

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:

>  Hello Hiren;
>
>
>
> On 10/27/2012 16:48, hiren panchasara wrote:
>
> + Sean, who has been helping me.
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Chris Rees  wrote:
>
>>  On 27 October 2012 22:17, hiren panchasara 
>> wrote:
>> > [removing the CC list]
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
>> >
>> >> (cc'ing -ports and cutting most of the rest)
>> >>
>> >> > From: Eitan Adler
>> >> .>
>> >> >On 24 October 2012 13:24, Fernando Apesteguía wrote:
>> >> >> Also related to that, what about writing a section about redports[1]
>> >> >> in the porter's handbook[2]?
>> >> >
>> >> >This is a good documentation task... but we need more *coding* tasks
>> as
>> >> well.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> We do need to port and test patch (1) from NetBSD or DragonFly to
>> replace
>> >> GNU patch, and this shouldn't be difficult.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hi Pedro / List,
>> >
>> > I am not part of google summer of code but I've tried to port patch(1)
>> from
>> > NetBSD into FreeBSD head. I hope that is okay.
>> >
>> > Patching was trivial and It _seems_ to be working fine.
>> >
>> > I would appreciate any ideas around how to test the changes and how to
>> > proceed further.
>>
>>  Have you a patch :)?  You're right, there shouldn't have been many
>> changes needed.
>>
>
> Will prepare a patch and post here as soon as I get a chance :-)
>
>
> This is great news Hiren, Thanks!
>
>
> The stress test for this utility is the ports tree but before that we have
> to
> know what will change.
>
Thanks Pedro!
I will have  a lot of questions as I am a newbie here. :-)

>
> What needs to be done is:
>
> 1- Compare the options between our old patch and the new BSD patch.
>
Will do.

> 2- Document this in FreeBSD's wiki.
>
I think this needs to be done when we are done deciding on diffs and how
the changes look, right?
Also, I do not think I have write access to the wiki.

> 3- Prepare a port for testing.
>
Does this need to be a port? I thought this would live in
/src/usr.bin/patch.
Also, I believe this will co-exist with current gnu patch(1). Is that a
right assumption?

Thank you,
Hiren

>
> Unfortunately I will be very busy for more than a month and I can't
> help much but I am sure some other committer will love to follow
> on this.
>
> Thanks for taking the initiative, that's what FreeBSD needs!
>
> Pedro.
>
>
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: How to boot FreeBSD and linux from FreeBSD MBR?

[Yuri]

On 10/27/2012 02:42, matt wrote:

This means you have grub2. It is slow as molasses and has to be the mbr.
You could chainload freebsd's partition under a separate entry, like
Windows The partition bootcode for FreeBSD will boot it from there. You
can also boot loader or kernel directly from grub, your choice.


So you are saying I can't keep BSD MBR and boot linux from under it when 
linux uses grub2?


Is it still possible to still use lilo? I vaguely remember that it used 
to work like this.


Yuri
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Installing make as pmake when WITH_BMAKE specified (was Re: [CFT/RFC]: refactor bsd.prog.mk to understand multiple programs instead of a singular program)

[Adrian Chadd]

Can someone please explain to me what the original reason is for
causing such ridiculously large, far reaching issues?

And why people seem to be in a really, really big rush for it?



Adrian
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Porting patch(1) from NetBSD to FreeBSD (was Re: FreeBSD in Google Code-In 2012? You can help too!)

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hello Hiren;


On 10/27/2012 16:48, hiren panchasara wrote:

+ Sean, who has been helping me.

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Chris Rees > wrote:


On 27 October 2012 22:17, hiren panchasara
mailto:hiren.panchas...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
> [removing the CC list]
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Pedro Giffuni mailto:p...@freebsd.org>> wrote:
>
>> (cc'ing -ports and cutting most of the rest)
>>
>> > From: Eitan Adler
>> .>
>> >On 24 October 2012 13:24, Fernando Apesteguía wrote:
>> >> Also related to that, what about writing a section about
redports[1]
>> >> in the porter's handbook[2]?
>> >
>> >This is a good documentation task... but we need more *coding*
tasks as
>> well.
>> >
>>
>> We do need to port and test patch (1) from NetBSD or DragonFly
to replace
>> GNU patch, and this shouldn't be difficult.
>>
>
> Hi Pedro / List,
>
> I am not part of google summer of code but I've tried to port
patch(1) from
> NetBSD into FreeBSD head. I hope that is okay.
>
> Patching was trivial and It _seems_ to be working fine.
>
> I would appreciate any ideas around how to test the changes and
how to
> proceed further.

Have you a patch :)?  You're right, there shouldn't have been many
changes needed.


Will prepare a patch and post here as soon as I get a chance :-)



This is great news Hiren, Thanks!


The stress test for this utility is the ports tree but before that we 
have to

know what will change.

What needs to be done is:

1- Compare the options between our old patch and the new BSD patch.
2- Document this in FreeBSD's wiki.
3- Prepare a port for testing.

Unfortunately I will be very busy for more than a month and I can't
help much but I am sure some other committer will love to follow
on this.

Thanks for taking the initiative, that's what FreeBSD needs!

Pedro.

___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Porting patch(1) from NetBSD to FreeBSD (was Re: FreeBSD in Google Code-In 2012? You can help too!)

[hiren panchasara]

+ Sean, who has been helping me.

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Chris Rees  wrote:

> On 27 October 2012 22:17, hiren panchasara 
> wrote:
> > [removing the CC list]
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
> >
> >> (cc'ing -ports and cutting most of the rest)
> >>
> >> > From: Eitan Adler
> >> .>
> >> >On 24 October 2012 13:24, Fernando Apesteguía wrote:
> >> >> Also related to that, what about writing a section about redports[1]
> >> >> in the porter's handbook[2]?
> >> >
> >> >This is a good documentation task... but we need more *coding* tasks as
> >> well.
> >> >
> >>
> >> We do need to port and test patch (1) from NetBSD or DragonFly to
> replace
> >> GNU patch, and this shouldn't be difficult.
> >>
> >
> > Hi Pedro / List,
> >
> > I am not part of google summer of code but I've tried to port patch(1)
> from
> > NetBSD into FreeBSD head. I hope that is okay.
> >
> > Patching was trivial and It _seems_ to be working fine.
> >
> > I would appreciate any ideas around how to test the changes and how to
> > proceed further.
>
> Have you a patch :)?  You're right, there shouldn't have been many
> changes needed.
>

Will prepare a patch and post here as soon as I get a chance :-)

Thanks,
Hiren
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: Porting patch(1) from NetBSD to FreeBSD (was Re: FreeBSD in Google Code-In 2012? You can help too!)

[Chris Rees]

On 27 October 2012 22:17, hiren panchasara  wrote:
> [removing the CC list]
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
>
>> (cc'ing -ports and cutting most of the rest)
>>
>> > From: Eitan Adler
>> .>
>> >On 24 October 2012 13:24, Fernando Apesteguía wrote:
>> >> Also related to that, what about writing a section about redports[1]
>> >> in the porter's handbook[2]?
>> >
>> >This is a good documentation task... but we need more *coding* tasks as
>> well.
>> >
>>
>> We do need to port and test patch (1) from NetBSD or DragonFly to replace
>> GNU patch, and this shouldn't be difficult.
>>
>
> Hi Pedro / List,
>
> I am not part of google summer of code but I've tried to port patch(1) from
> NetBSD into FreeBSD head. I hope that is okay.
>
> Patching was trivial and It _seems_ to be working fine.
>
> I would appreciate any ideas around how to test the changes and how to
> proceed further.

Have you a patch :)?  You're right, there shouldn't have been many
changes needed.

Chris
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

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

[Simon J. Gerraty]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:53:56 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
>I'm saying that it's unacceptable to expect people to change their
>systems just to make the ports tree work after we have broken it on a
>supposedly supported version.

But there's no suggestion of that.  
The ports tree would take care of itself.

The comment about fixing makefiles refered to the concern about things
outside of base/ports.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Porting patch(1) from NetBSD to FreeBSD (was Re: FreeBSD in Google Code-In 2012? You can help too!)

[hiren panchasara]

[removing the CC list]

On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:

> (cc'ing -ports and cutting most of the rest)
>
> > From: Eitan Adler
> .>
> >On 24 October 2012 13:24, Fernando Apesteguía wrote:
> >> Also related to that, what about writing a section about redports[1]
> >> in the porter's handbook[2]?
> >
> >This is a good documentation task... but we need more *coding* tasks as
> well.
> >
>
> We do need to port and test patch (1) from NetBSD or DragonFly to replace
> GNU patch, and this shouldn't be difficult.
>

Hi Pedro / List,

I am not part of google summer of code but I've tried to port patch(1) from
NetBSD into FreeBSD head. I hope that is okay.

Patching was trivial and It _seems_ to be working fine.

I would appreciate any ideas around how to test the changes and how to
proceed further.

Thanks,
Hiren
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

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

[Simon J. Gerraty]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:23:29 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
>We (ab)use the security update mechanism to merge the pmake changes
>(:tl and :tu) into releng/7.4 and releng/8.3 (possibly the earlier

I originally provided the :tl and :tu patch for something like that
(not planning any abuse mind ;-)

But, if portmgr test my "patch" and find it works "ok" (for some value of
"ok") for older releases, this probably isn't necessary?

It may still be useful though to provide an updated fmake via ports,
which could make it easier for folk to migrate other code bases.
The sed script to be applied to makefiles is trivial btw:

$ cat f2bmake.sed
/$.*:[UL][:)}]/ { s,:L,:tl,g;s,:U,:tu,g; }
$
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

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

[Simon J. Gerraty]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:32:56 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
>On 27 October 2012 18:27, Simon J. Gerraty  wrote:
>> I've tested the ports tree converted to bmake - per the "patch" I
>> mentioned on a 7.1 box.  It worked for me.  Once the ports tree has

>What about these?
>
>[crees@pegasus]~% grep -n :\[LU] /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk | tee
>/dev/tty | wc -l
>1324:PORTVERSION=
>${DISTVERSION:L:C/([a-z])[a-z]+/\1/g:C/([0-9])([a-z])/\1.\2/g:C/:(.)/\1/g:C/[^
>a-z0-9+]+/./g}
>1451:.if (defined(USE_QT_VER) && ${USE_QT_VER:L} == 3) ||
>defined(USE_KDELIBS_VER) || defined(USE_KDEBASE_VER)

I'm not sure I follow, that tree has not been "patched".
If it were:

$ grep -l '$.*:[UL][:)}]' Mk/*mk
$


___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

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

[Simon J. Gerraty]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:44:36 -0500, Bryan Drewery writes:
>Could there be a make.conf/env setting to make bmake run AS pmake in
>full compat mode? On by default until all older branches are EoL, then
>it can flip and be optional.

This has been mentioned before.

Firstly, I have changed bmake behavior in a number of ways to better fit
FreeBSD, but in each case I could justify the change to the NetBSD folk
as well (or at least most of them ;-)

The above idea though would require doing more violence to bmake's
internals than I think is desirable, plus it would be counter productive.

Today, you can test for defined(.PARSEDIR) and *know* if you have bmake
or not, and if you have, how it behaves.  
If we start hacking compat modes and such to avoid changing, it would be
more trouble that it is worth to try and make use of bmake in any
meaningful way.

The simpler implementation of this idea is to simply leave the old make 
in place.

>Or even via a symlink, whatever it is invoked as is what mode it runs in.

This is more practical I think.
Making /usr/bin/make -> [fb]make
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

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

[Chris Rees]

On 27 October 2012 19:52, Simon J. Gerraty  wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:23:29 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
>>We (ab)use the security update mechanism to merge the pmake changes
>>(:tl and :tu) into releng/7.4 and releng/8.3 (possibly the earlier
>
> I originally provided the :tl and :tu patch for something like that
> (not planning any abuse mind ;-)
>
> But, if portmgr test my "patch" and find it works "ok" (for some value of
> "ok") for older releases, this probably isn't necessary?
>
> It may still be useful though to provide an updated fmake via ports,
> which could make it easier for folk to migrate other code bases.
> The sed script to be applied to makefiles is trivial btw:
>
> $ cat f2bmake.sed
> /$.*:[UL][:)}]/ { s,:L,:tl,g;s,:U,:tu,g; }
> $

I know the fix is trivial :)

I'm saying that it's unacceptable to expect people to change their
systems just to make the ports tree work after we have broken it on a
supposedly supported version.

Chris
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

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

[Simon J. Gerraty]

>These discussions need backing up with a real roadmap, including detail on
>exactly what 8.3 and 7.4 users will have to do to ensure that the ports
>tree still works.

I've tested the ports tree converted to bmake - per the "patch" I
mentioned on a 7.1 box.  It worked for me.  Once the ports tree has
found or installed bmake, the system version makes no further
difference.

Obviously not a conclusive result, but yes this issue has been given
consideration.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

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

[Chris Rees]

On 27 October 2012 18:27, Simon J. Gerraty  wrote:
>>These discussions need backing up with a real roadmap, including detail on
>>exactly what 8.3 and 7.4 users will have to do to ensure that the ports
>>tree still works.
>
> I've tested the ports tree converted to bmake - per the "patch" I
> mentioned on a 7.1 box.  It worked for me.  Once the ports tree has
> found or installed bmake, the system version makes no further
> difference.
>
> Obviously not a conclusive result, but yes this issue has been given
> consideration.

What about these?

[crees@pegasus]~% grep -n :\[LU] /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk | tee
/dev/tty | wc -l
1324:PORTVERSION=
${DISTVERSION:L:C/([a-z])[a-z]+/\1/g:C/([0-9])([a-z])/\1.\2/g:C/:(.)/\1/g:C/[^a-z0-9+]+/./g}
1451:.if (defined(USE_QT_VER) && ${USE_QT_VER:L} == 3) ||
defined(USE_KDELIBS_VER) || defined(USE_KDEBASE_VER)
1455:.if defined(USE_QT_VER) && ${USE_QT_VER:L} == 4 || defined(USE_QT4)
1674:.if ${USE_PKGCONFIG:L} == yes || ${USE_PKGCONFIG:L} == build
1677:.elif ${USE_PKGCONFIG:L} == both
1681:.elif ${USE_PKGCONFIG:L} == run
1696:${b}=  ${LOCALBASE}/bin/${b:C/PP/++/:L}
1763:_USE_OPENAL+= ${_OPENAL_${_OPENAL_SYSTEM:U}}
1783:_USE_OPENAL+=  ${_OPENAL_${component:U}}
1829:.if defined(FAM_SYSTEM_${FAM_SYSTEM:U})
1830:LIB_DEPENDS+=  ${FAM_SYSTEM_${FAM_SYSTEM:U}}
1836:.if defined(USE_RC_SUBR) && ${USE_RC_SUBR:U} != "YES"
1844:.if defined(USE_LDCONFIG) && ${USE_LDCONFIG:L} == "yes"
1847:.if defined(USE_LDCONFIG32) && ${USE_LDCONFIG32:L} == "yes"
1856:.  if ${USE_GETTEXT:L} == "build"
1858:.  elif ${USE_GETTEXT:L} == "run"
1860:.  elif ${USE_GETTEXT:L} == "yes"
1888:.  if ${USE_LINUX:L} == yes
1899:.  if ${USE_LINUX:L} == "yes"
1977:. if ${USE_GL:L} == "yes"
1994:. if ${USE_BISON:L} == "build"
1996:. elif ${USE_BISON:L} == "run"
1998:. elif ${USE_BISON:L} == "both"
2044:.if defined(USE_QT_VER) && ${USE_QT_VER:L} == 4 || defined(USE_QT4)
3038:_MANPAGES+=
${MAN${sect}:S%^%${MAN${sect}PREFIX}/${manlang}/man${sect:L}/%}
3043:.if defined(MAN${sect}_${manlang:S%^man/%%:U})
3044:_MANPAGES+=
${MAN${sect}_${manlang:S%^man/%%:U}:S%^%${MAN${sect}PREFIX}/${manlang}/man${sect:L}/%}
3056:_MANPAGES+=
${MAN${sect}_EN:S%^%${MAN${sect}PREFIX}/man/man${sect:L}/%}
3312:   || defined(CONFIG_DONE_${UNIQUENAME:U}) || \
3600:.if ${USE_DOS2UNIX:U}=="YES"
4361:${target}: ${${target:U}_COOKIE}
4364:   @cd ${.CURDIR} && ${MAKE} CONFIG_DONE_${UNIQUENAME:U}=1
${${target:U}_COOKIE}
4368:.if !exists(${${target:U}_COOKIE})
4370:.if ${UID} != 0 && defined(_${target:U}_SUSEQ) && !defined(INSTALL_AS_USER)
4372:${${target:U}_COOKIE}: ${_${target:U}_DEP}
4373:   @cd ${.CURDIR} && ${MAKE} ${_${target:U}_SEQ}
4375:${${target:U}_COOKIE}: ${_${target:U}_DEP} ${_${target:U}_SEQ}
4379:   ${SU_CMD} "${MAKE} ${_${target:U}_SUSEQ}"
4383:${${target:U}_COOKIE}: ${_${target:U}_DEP}
4385:   ${MAKE} ${_${target:U}_SEQ} ${_${target:U}_SUSEQ}
4388:${${target:U}_COOKIE}: ${_${target:U}_DEP} ${_${target:U}_SEQ}
${_${target:U}_SUSEQ}
4393:${${target:U}_COOKIE}::
4802:   for alg in ${CHECKSUM_ALGORITHMS:U}; do \
4825:   for alg in ${CHECKSUM_ALGORITHMS:U}; do \
4836:   for alg in ${CHECKSUM_ALGORITHMS:U}; do \
4850:   for alg in ${CHECKSUM_ALGORITHMS:U}; do \
4904:   for alg in ${CHECKSUM_ALGORITHMS:U}; do \
5032:${deptype:L}-depends:
5653:${i:S/-//:U}=  ${WRKDIR}/${SUB_FILES:M${i}*}
5700:.if defined(PLIST_REINPLACE_${reinplace:U})
5701:   @${SED} -i "" -e '${PLIST_REINPLACE_${reinplace:U}}' ${TMPPLIST}
5854:.if defined(USE_RCORDER) || defined(USE_RC_SUBR) &&
${USE_RC_SUBR:U} != "YES"
5864:.if defined(USE_RC_SUBR) && ${USE_RC_SUBR:U} != "YES"
  53
[crees@pegasus]~%

Chris
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Call for review -- rc needs some love!

[Chris Rees]

Hi all,

I've tried to have a look at some of the lingering issues in our rc
[1] as well as kick up some discussion over some other patches, but
looking over the archives of the list it seems that no-one is
maintaining it or reviewing patches.

Because of this, I'm having a hard time working out how to get any of
my patches in!

Please would someone with a src bit review some of my fixes [2]?  I'm
working on a few more, but I would need approval for anything
committed.

Thanks!

Chris

[1] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?responsible=freebsd-rc

[2] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-rc/2012-October/thread.html
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

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

[Bryan Drewery]

On 10/27/2012 9:40 AM, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 27 October 2012 10:34, Chris Rees  wrote:
>>> This "weeks" is making a assumptions that users 1. reads ports@ or 2.
>>> Update to security/errata patches in a timely manner or 3. Read UPDATING
>>
>> Quite.  This should be at least a few months, otherwise we're making
>> unreasonable requests of our users, and yet again annoy them by
>> breaking older versions-- this time with no real benefit for
>> end-users.
> 
> +1
> 
> I would venture to guess that most of our users don't even read -announce.
> 
> In addition there are non-ports concerns here.  Many people probably
> have custom Makefiles they use for their own projects which may rely
> on existing behavior.
> 
> 

I apologize for not reading the full thread.

Could there be a make.conf/env setting to make bmake run AS pmake in
full compat mode? On by default until all older branches are EoL, then
it can flip and be optional.

Or even via a symlink, whatever it is invoked as is what mode it runs in.

Bryan
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

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

[Eitan Adler]

On 27 October 2012 10:34, Chris Rees  wrote:
>> This "weeks" is making a assumptions that users 1. reads ports@ or 2.
>> Update to security/errata patches in a timely manner or 3. Read UPDATING
>
> Quite.  This should be at least a few months, otherwise we're making
> unreasonable requests of our users, and yet again annoy them by
> breaking older versions-- this time with no real benefit for
> end-users.

+1

I would venture to guess that most of our users don't even read -announce.

In addition there are non-ports concerns here.  Many people probably
have custom Makefiles they use for their own projects which may rely
on existing behavior.


-- 
Eitan Adler
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

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

[Bryan Drewery]

On 10/27/2012 8:23 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
> [trim CC list a little to stop people regretting replying to this thread]
> 
> On 27 October 2012 10:15, Chris Rees  wrote:
>>
>> On 27 Oct 2012 00:35, "Simon J. Gerraty"  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:02:00 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
 In that case we have a switch time on the order of years, not weeks; 8.3
 is
 supported until May '14, and unless we get a :tl etc MFC into 8, even
 longer.  All this time the ports tree must work with pmake.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure I was told it is already in 8 and 7
>>
>> Not in 8.3 at least:
>>
>> svnweb.freebsd.org/base/releng/8.3/usr.bin/make/var.c?view=log
>>
 I don't want to discourage you or belittle your excellent work here, but
 Marcel made me very nervous with his comment on the process being "a few
 weeks".
>>>
>>> That was based on discussions at the last devsummit.
>>
>> These discussions need backing up with a real roadmap, including detail on
>> exactly what 8.3 and 7.4 users will have to do to ensure that the ports tree
>> still works.
>>
>> I don't see where these considerations have been made.
> 
> OK, so how about this.
> 
> We (ab)use the security update mechanism to merge the pmake changes
> (:tl and :tu) into releng/7.4 and releng/8.3 (possibly the earlier
> releng branches such as 7.3, 8.2, 9.0).  We could then send out a
> message on ports-announce, giving a few weeks' notice that the change
> to bsd.port.mk is going through and that users need the latest
> 'security' patches.

This "weeks" is making a assumptions that users 1. reads ports@ or 2.
Update to security/errata patches in a timely manner or 3. Read UPDATING


> 
> When we change bsd.port.mk over, include a snippet such as the one at
> [1], which gives more informative error text and refers user to
> documentation.
> 
> Although I still think this is less than ideal, it is the only way I
> can see that we can switch before May '14, if the urgency is there.
> 
> Chris
> 
> [1] http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/bmake-pmake.diff
> ___
> freebsd-a...@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
> 

___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

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

[Chris Rees]

On 27 October 2012 15:32, Bryan Drewery  wrote:
> On 10/27/2012 8:23 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
>> [trim CC list a little to stop people regretting replying to this thread]
>>
>> On 27 October 2012 10:15, Chris Rees  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 27 Oct 2012 00:35, "Simon J. Gerraty"  wrote:


 On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:02:00 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
> In that case we have a switch time on the order of years, not weeks; 8.3
> is
> supported until May '14, and unless we get a :tl etc MFC into 8, even
> longer.  All this time the ports tree must work with pmake.

 I'm pretty sure I was told it is already in 8 and 7
>>>
>>> Not in 8.3 at least:
>>>
>>> svnweb.freebsd.org/base/releng/8.3/usr.bin/make/var.c?view=log
>>>
> I don't want to discourage you or belittle your excellent work here, but
> Marcel made me very nervous with his comment on the process being "a few
> weeks".

 That was based on discussions at the last devsummit.
>>>
>>> These discussions need backing up with a real roadmap, including detail on
>>> exactly what 8.3 and 7.4 users will have to do to ensure that the ports tree
>>> still works.
>>>
>>> I don't see where these considerations have been made.
>>
>> OK, so how about this.
>>
>> We (ab)use the security update mechanism to merge the pmake changes
>> (:tl and :tu) into releng/7.4 and releng/8.3 (possibly the earlier
>> releng branches such as 7.3, 8.2, 9.0).  We could then send out a
>> message on ports-announce, giving a few weeks' notice that the change
>> to bsd.port.mk is going through and that users need the latest
>> 'security' patches.
>
> This "weeks" is making a assumptions that users 1. reads ports@ or 2.
> Update to security/errata patches in a timely manner or 3. Read UPDATING

Quite.  This should be at least a few months, otherwise we're making
unreasonable requests of our users, and yet again annoy them by
breaking older versions-- this time with no real benefit for
end-users.

Chris
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

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

[Chris Rees]

[trim CC list a little to stop people regretting replying to this thread]

On 27 October 2012 10:15, Chris Rees  wrote:
>
> On 27 Oct 2012 00:35, "Simon J. Gerraty"  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:02:00 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
>> >In that case we have a switch time on the order of years, not weeks; 8.3
>> > is
>> >supported until May '14, and unless we get a :tl etc MFC into 8, even
>> >longer.  All this time the ports tree must work with pmake.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure I was told it is already in 8 and 7
>
> Not in 8.3 at least:
>
> svnweb.freebsd.org/base/releng/8.3/usr.bin/make/var.c?view=log
>
>> >I don't want to discourage you or belittle your excellent work here, but
>> >Marcel made me very nervous with his comment on the process being "a few
>> >weeks".
>>
>> That was based on discussions at the last devsummit.
>
> These discussions need backing up with a real roadmap, including detail on
> exactly what 8.3 and 7.4 users will have to do to ensure that the ports tree
> still works.
>
> I don't see where these considerations have been made.

OK, so how about this.

We (ab)use the security update mechanism to merge the pmake changes
(:tl and :tu) into releng/7.4 and releng/8.3 (possibly the earlier
releng branches such as 7.3, 8.2, 9.0).  We could then send out a
message on ports-announce, giving a few weeks' notice that the change
to bsd.port.mk is going through and that users need the latest
'security' patches.

When we change bsd.port.mk over, include a snippet such as the one at
[1], which gives more informative error text and refers user to
documentation.

Although I still think this is less than ideal, it is the only way I
can see that we can switch before May '14, if the urgency is there.

Chris

[1] http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/bmake-pmake.diff
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

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

[Simon J. Gerraty]

BTW, would it be useful to put a devel/fmake into ports to make it easy
for people with older systems to install an up to date version of
freebsd make (which groks both sets of toupper/tolower modifiers)? 
Perhaps a knob to install it or put in a link as /usr/bin/make ?
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Re: How to boot FreeBSD and linux from FreeBSD MBR?

[matt]

On 10/26/12 22:14, Yuri wrote:
> When I installed ubuntu on another partition, it overwrote BSD MBR
> with grub one.
> Now grub boots ubuntu without even asking what to boot.
> When I tried to restore BSD MBR, BSD boots but linux doesn't. This is
> because there is no bootable PBR in linux partition.
> When I tried to install grub into PBR on its own partition, like
> someone online suggested, it refused with the message that this is
> dangerous, etc.
>
> So is there a way to boot both linux and BSD from BSD MBR (by pressing
> F2 or whatever)?
> Are there quick instructions anywhere?
> I just don't want grub to take over the boot process.
>
> Yuri
>
> ___
> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
>
This means you have grub2. It is slow as molasses and has to be the mbr.
You could chainload freebsd's partition under a separate entry, like
Windows The partition bootcode for FreeBSD will boot it from there. You
can also boot loader or kernel directly from grub, your choice.

Matt
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

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

[Chris Rees]

On 27 Oct 2012 00:35, "Simon J. Gerraty"  wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 22:02:00 +0100, Chris Rees writes:
> >In that case we have a switch time on the order of years, not weeks; 8.3
is
> >supported until May '14, and unless we get a :tl etc MFC into 8, even
> >longer.  All this time the ports tree must work with pmake.
>
> I'm pretty sure I was told it is already in 8 and 7

Not in 8.3 at least:

svnweb.freebsd.org/base/releng/8.3/usr.bin/make/var.c?view=log

> >I don't want to discourage you or belittle your excellent work here, but
> >Marcel made me very nervous with his comment on the process being "a few
> >weeks".
>
> That was based on discussions at the last devsummit.

These discussions need backing up with a real roadmap, including detail on
exactly what 8.3 and 7.4 users will have to do to ensure that the ports
tree still works.

I don't see where these considerations have been made.

Chris
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"