From owner-freebsd-ports Sat May 5 2: 0:30 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from heinz.jollem.com (c104187.upc-c.chello.nl [212.187.104.187]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B895A37B43C; Sat, 5 May 2001 02:00:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ernst@heinz.jollem.com) Received: (from ernst@localhost) by heinz.jollem.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f458wUP00383; Sat, 5 May 2001 10:58:30 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ernst) Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 10:58:30 +0200 From: Ernst de Haan To: Akinori MUSHA Cc: Will Andrews , portmgr@FreeBSD.ORG, Eric Melville , FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: port policies Message-ID: <20010505105830.A371@c187104187.telekabel.chello.nl> References: <200104300810.f3U8AGY60114@freefall.freebsd.org> <86elua4wf1.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> <20010430023347.A70094@xor.obsecurity.org> <20010504123304.B66630@FreeBSD.org> <20010504143140.J3246@casimir.physics.purdue.edu> <863dakddpo.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <863dakddpo.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org>; from knu@iDaemons.org on Sat, May 05, 2001 at 06:08:35AM +0900 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org What about adding both MAKE_JOBS_SAFE *and* MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE ? This way we can distinguish between ports that explicitly *don't* support MAKE_JOBS and those that haven't specified this. In this case we could extend portlint to check that either one of those is defined. Or we could use MAKE_JOBS_SAFE for both cases: MAKE_JOBS_SAFE= YES or MAKE_JOBS_SAFE= NO Just my 2 cts. /Ernst Akinori MUSHA wrote: > At Fri, 4 May 2001 14:31:41 -0500, > Will Andrews wrote: > > On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 12:33:04PM -0700, Eric Melville wrote: > > > Is it also accepted policy to NOT hardcode -j options to make? If not, can > > > we make it so? This is just asking for trouble in many cases. > > > > Sure. I think it's probably useful to add a "MAKE_JOBS" variable to > > bsd.port.mk so people who know what they are doing can use it easily. > > Regardless, I agree 100% with you on the -j thing. > > How about introducing a per-port boolean variable "MAKE_JOBS_SAFE" > along with "MAKE_JOBS" ? (Rename them if you could think of better > names) > > Index: bsd.port.mk > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/ncvs/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk,v > retrieving revision 1.366 > diff -u -u -r1.366 bsd.port.mk > --- bsd.port.mk 2001/04/22 16:47:55 1.366 > +++ bsd.port.mk 2001/05/04 21:04:18 > @@ -404,6 +404,9 @@ > # and install stages (default: see below). > # MAKE_ARGS - Any extra arguments to sub-make in build and install > # stages (default: none). > +# MAKE_JOBS - Specify the -jN option to be added to MAKE_ARGS when > +# MAKE_JOBS_SAFE is defined (default: -j4). > +# MAKE_JOBS_SAFE - Says that the port is safe to build with make -jN. > # > # For install: > # > @@ -748,6 +751,12 @@ > SCRIPTS_ENV+= PORTOBJFORMAT=${PORTOBJFORMAT} > MAKE_ENV+= PORTOBJFORMAT=${PORTOBJFORMAT} > PLIST_SUB+= PORTOBJFORMAT=${PORTOBJFORMAT} > + > +MAKE_JOBS?= -j4 > + > +.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_SAFE) > +MAKE_ARGS+= ${MAKE_JOBS} > +.endif > > .if defined(MANCOMPRESSED) > .if ${MANCOMPRESSED} != yes && ${MANCOMPRESSED} != no && \ > > > > P.S. > Where do all those portmgr's belong? My patches against bsd.ruby.mk > have always been ignored... > > -- > / > /__ __ Akinori.org / MUSHA.org > / ) ) ) ) / FreeBSD.org / Ruby-lang.org > Akinori MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( @ iDaemons.org / and.or.jp > > "Freeze this moment a little bit longer, make each impression > a little bit stronger.. Experience slips away -- Time stand still" > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message > -- Ernst de Haan Java Architect Jollem Information Technology "Come to me all who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest" -- Jesus Christ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message