From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 28 16:44:35 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B31616A400 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:44:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh@tcbug.org) Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (rwcrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.192.83]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1915B13C48E for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:44:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from josh@tcbug.org) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-67-190-235-215.hsd1.mn.comcast.net[67.190.235.215]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20070228164433m13006bq7fe>; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:44:33 +0000 From: Josh Paetzel To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:44:16 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200702281044.16855.josh@tcbug.org> Cc: Christian Baer Subject: Re: compiling ports with more than one job X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:44:35 -0000 On Wednesday 28 February 2007 04:32, Christian Baer wrote: > Good morning[1], folks! > > I am currently setting up a Sun U60 with FreeBSD. A few amount of > apps will be installed on it, when I'm through with it. And that is > where it gets a little frustrating. > > The packages for SPARC64 aren't really up to date. That is why > using them isn't really an option. Besides, some programs actually > get a real boost if they are compiled with an -mcpu flag, which > probably isn't set when the packages are compiled. So, I'm down to > installing them over the ports collection. > > That isn't bad in itself. But even a U60 isn't really a fast > machine and if you compile bigger collections (like x.org, kde, > firefox etc.) you can watch yourself aging while the machine is at > it. It would be a great help if I could really use both CPUs in > this machine. But somehow that doesn't work. I have observed two > things so far (in general): > > Some ports (like mc) have a menu for choosing the compile options. > If I try to make one of those with more than one job (make -j 2) I > can't hit any of the boxes on the list of options or even hit the > "ok" button. It would seem that make went on to the next job > without actually waiting for the input. > > The same background but with a slightly different effect is also > true for ports without a menu. I couldn't make xorg with more than > one job because make just ran on without waiting for the required > things to be there and stopped with a "no such file or directory". > That is quite a drag as on UltraSPARC II CPUs compiling isn't much > fun even if you use all the CPU-power there is. > > Normally you'd think that a meta-port like xorg just hast to be > compiled step by step. However, a far more complex system (make -j > 4 buildworld) works just fine. > > Am I too thick to get the point here or is it really true that the > ports in general will only compile correctly one job at a time? > > Regards > Chris The issues with the config screen sounds like a bug, but one that is unlikely to get fixed any time soon. You can avoid it by doing a make config-recursive before building the port, but you're still going to run in to the problem that ports are not guarranteed to by -jX safe, some will work, some won't, and there's no way of knowing without trying it. In general you can save yourself a lot of headaches by not trying in the first place. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel