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
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:00:21PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Here's an updated version of the workaround that works properly in all
cases and installs bmake as make and links make to pmake when
WITH_BMAKE=yes, and installs make as make when WITHOUT_BMAKE is
specified (this works better than
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:00:21PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Here's an updated version of the workaround that works properly in all
cases and installs bmake as make and links make to pmake when
WITH_BMAKE=yes, and installs make as make when WITHOUT_BMAKE is
specified (this works better than
with their use of FreeBSD's make in their own projects. So picking a
good name now would be helpful.
FWIW I keep a copy in /usr/bin/fmake so I can compare behavior.
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:34 AM, David O'Brien obr...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 03:00:21PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Here's an updated version of the workaround that works properly in all
cases and installs bmake as make and links make to pmake when
WITH_BMAKE=yes, and
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 09:34:20AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
(there are no pre-build packages for 10-CURRENT).
Please see the first two entries on:
http://pkgbeta.freebsd.org/
mcl
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Garrett Cooper yaneg...@gmail.com wrote:
...
The real issue is that I need to take the patch Simon developed, run
with it, and in parallel he needs to -- and hopefully already is --
engage portmgr to get it through a number of exp- runs to make sure
bmake
7 matches
Mail list logo
