From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 24 19:08:07 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DFAA106566B for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:08:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brian@brianwhalen.net) Received: from numail.brianwhalen.net (numail.brianwhalen.net [66.93.34.172]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BEBC8FC14 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:08:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brian@brianwhalen.net) Received: by numail.brianwhalen.net (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 686C028460; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:08:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on numail.brianwhalen.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=3.0 tests=none autolearn=failed version=3.2.5 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (numail.brianwhalen.net [192.168.15.25]) by numail.brianwhalen.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94E02845E for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49C92F95.3090601@brianwhalen.net> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:08:05 -0700 From: Brian Whalen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <1237901632.1849.19.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> In-Reply-To: <1237901632.1849.19.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: HEADS UP multi processor compilations and packages X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:08:07 -0000 Pav Lucistnik wrote: > Two days ago, I have checked in probably most requested feature of last > few years. Ports framework now systematically supports building ports on > multiple processing cores. It is achieved by passing -jX flag to make(1) > running on vendor code. Of course not all ports handle this well, > experimental run on pointyhat with this flag globally enabled turned up > shy of 400 failures. Because of that, the feature was designed as a > whitelist. Individual ports need to be enabled, and indeed, fellow > developers took on and already started adding required declarations to > popular ports like Firefox and others. > > > On a related topic, I wonder what the cost would be of acquiring enough hardware so that the probability of actually getting a package with portupgrade -aP would go up substantially. I imagine the time required for the build servers to build packages with the above mod would go down substantially. Brian