Subject: bmake [was: pkg/19789: MACHINE_ARCH is i686, but Makefiles check for i386]
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jan Schaumann <email@example.com>
Date: 01/11/2003 19:14:30
"Simon J. Gerraty" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 15:29:49 -0500, Jan Schaumann writes:
> >> What version of bmake are you looking at?
> >I was looking at bootstrap-pkgsrc's bmake, which is most likely what
> >Jeremy was using.
> >I'll synch bootstrap-pkgsrc with this version, then, unless anybody
> What does synch mean in this case? Does bootstrap-pkgsrc, just grab
> and install bmake-3.x or does it do something else?
Well, since it bootstrap-pkgsrc can't use pkgsrc yet, it doesn't go into
pkgrsc/devel/bmake but has it's own, local copy of the sources.
Obviously, this is a disadvantage, as we have to maintain the same code
in two locations (ie synch the sources in bootstrap-pkgsrc with your
Since bmake is the first to be built in the bootstrap-process, would we
be able to download and extract the bmake tarball non-interactively
across platforms? If so, we could simply put a shell-script into
bootstrap-pkgsrc/bmake that will fetch and extract the sources before
building it. But I suspect that this will not be possible across all
> In any case, yes bmake-3.1.15 is the best bet.
bootstrap-pkgsrc currently uses 3.1.12 (thus K&R C, still).
Should we adopt 3.1.15, bootstrap-folks? I don't see why not.
Life," said Marvin, "don't talk to me about life."