Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:00:15 +0000 From: "Florent Thoumie" <flz@xbsd.org> To: "Benjamin Lutz" <mail@maxlor.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/113132 (make -j patch) Message-ID: <a01628140803120700g7f1ace02pa95f8a1c262300b9@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <a01628140803120601w49848718hc6ea6208f2b21692@mail.gmail.com> References: <200803121311.51383.mail@maxlor.com> <a01628140803120601w49848718hc6ea6208f2b21692@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Florent Thoumie <flz@xbsd.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin Lutz <mail@maxlor.com> wrote: > > This patch has been sitting in GNATS for a couple of months now: > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/113132 > > > > I've received a few mails from people reporting success, and none > > reporting that bad things have happened. Is it possible to get this > > committed? > > It needs to go through an experimental build first. > > IMHO, this is an ugly hack. Ultimately, we're talking about marking > almost 20k ports as parallel-safe. > > Why not taking the opposite approach? Allow it by default, figure out > which ports break and why, fix where possible? After talking with Pav, it seems it's still the best option as the breakage rate is quite high. -- Florent Thoumie flz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD Committer
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a01628140803120700g7f1ace02pa95f8a1c262300b9>