From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Mar 27 14:36:30 2009
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id 96B661065670; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:36:30 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:36:30 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Max Brazhnikov <makc@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20090327143630.GA13575@FreeBSD.org>
References: <200903270953.n2R9racu052536@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<200903271643.21950.makc@freebsd.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200903271643.21950.makc@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org,
	Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/archivers/deb2targz Makefile
	ports/archivers/ecm Makefile ports/archivers/gzrecover
	Makefile ports/archivers/mar Makefile ports/archivers/ppmd
	Makefile ports/archivers/tardy Makefile ports/archivers/unlzx
	Makefile ports/archivers/unmass ...
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree
	<cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:36:31 -0000

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 04:43:21PM +0300, Max Brazhnikov wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:53:36 +0000 (UTC), Emanuel Haupt wrote:
> >   Mark MAKE_JOBS_SAFE
> >  
> >   Revision  Changes    Path
> >   1.6       +1 -0      ports/archivers/deb2targz/Makefile
> 
> Is there reason for marking ports, which do not require build target at all?

I'm actually wondering why are we are not marking ~400 "not safe"
ports instead of marking ~20k-400 others as "safe".  I realize that the
build cluster cannot catch every implication of parallel builds, but
that huge amount of gratuitous commits worries me.  One of the really
cool things about our port infrastructure is ability to hide lots of the
build process under simple declarative rules, letting the porter specify
"what" they want instead of exactly "how".  To me, MAKE_JOBS_SAFE knob
does not fit nicely in this paradigm.

./danfe