tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Who maintains bootstrap-mk-files (mk-configure again)?

 >> And the last question is what is the goal of these scripts in pkgsrc?
 >> Are they ready for general purpose bmake-based development under
 >> non-NetBSD platforms? Or this is not a goal of it?

> Some parts of the mk files are used for some individual packages that use 
> it for their builds.

This gives minimal garantee of its correctness.

> I think for general purpose development is a goal.

 >> As some of you may already know I'm developing wip/mk-configure,
 >> lightweight replacement for GNU autoconf written in and for bmake
 >> created for general purpose non-NetBSD development. For further
 >> development of this project I have a plan to use either Simon Gerraty's
 >> mk-files or pkgsrc's version of mk-files because both of them can
 >> replace another autotools part, automake. I'm not sure which of them is
 >> better.  Any thoughts? (if this is offtopic, email me privately).

> Use his mk tar ball. Try to integrate the improvements
I tried to fix pkgsrc's version of mk-file but had no luck

pkg/39694 [serious/medium]: under Interix-3.5
pkg/39715 [serious/high]: bmake: bug in ?

> (either way) and 
> share them back so we only have one version (instead of two or three).
devel/mk-files wrongly conflicts with bootstrap-mk-files for many years.

pkg/41021 [serious/medium]: Fixes and improvements for devel/mk-files (patch)

This package was not updated for more than 3 years.
It looks like actually nobody uses it.

Another bad news is that neither bmake not mk-files has publicly
available bug tracking system. Is it common and very good practice for
today's open source projects... heh :-/

Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index