Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:05:00 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jonathan Noack" <noackjr@alumni.rice.edu> To: ports@freebsd.org Cc: markus@freebsd.org Subject: Re: parallel ports build Message-ID: <2175.75.206.125.19.1193681100.squirrel@www.noacks.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
No responses yet so... *ping* :) On Thu, October 18, 2007 18:50, Jonathan Noack wrote: > With most modern systems having 2+ cores, I was wondering if the ports > system could make use of more than one of them. I briefly searched the > web and list archives and found several short discussions and the > following page (cced author markus@): > http://www.brueffer.de/parallel_ports_build.html > > The bsd.port.mk patch on that page is dated March 2004 (!) but looks > pretty simple. A port must set "SUPPORTS_PARALLEL_BUILD=yes" to allow a > parallel build. If it does, the BUILD_JOBS knob is used (either read from > /etc/make.conf, env, or defaults to 0) and "-j${BUILD_JOBS}" is passed to > make. As a bonus, the patch includes CC/CXX wrapper support for > ccache/distcc/etc. > > Given that not all ports successfully build in parallel, the opt-in > approach seems reasonable. It allows port maintainers to test their ports > and update them if everything works well. Even a simple pass through the > ports tree focusing on the heavy-hitters (X, KDE, Gnome, Apache, PHP, > MySQL, Postgres, OpenOffice, etc.) and their dependencies could make a > significant dent in build time. This would be most evident for new > installs and upgrades where you are basically starting from scratch. > > I am far from an expert in this area so I wanted to see what others > thought. Is this a good approach or is there a better one? > > -Jon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2175.75.206.125.19.1193681100.squirrel>