From owner-cvs-all  Mon May  7 12:45:19 2001
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from privatecube.privatelabs.com (privatecube.privatelabs.com [63.114.185.254])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9C0D737B422; Mon,  7 May 2001 12:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from mi@misha.privatelabs.com)
Received: from misha.privatelabs.com (root@misha.plten [10.0.0.106])
	by privatecube.privatelabs.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id PAA06712;
	Mon, 7 May 2001 15:05:40 -0400
Received: from misha.privatelabs.com (mi@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by misha.privatelabs.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f47Ji5C35804;
	Mon, 7 May 2001 15:44:18 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from mi@misha.privatelabs.com)
Message-Id: <200105071944.f47Ji5C35804@misha.privatelabs.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 15:44:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@misha.privatelabs.com>
Subject: Re: port policies
To: eric@FreeBSD.org
Cc: kris@obsecurity.org, knu@iDaemons.org, kris@FreeBSD.org,
	cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <20010504135013.A72262@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On  4 May, Eric Melville wrote:
>> Hmm..don't know of any ports which do this actually. It's likely to be
>> safer (than using high -O values) though, because the author
>> presumably tested the build actually works with that value, and -j is
>> more of a deterministic thing (except for race conditions in the
>> build) than -O is.
> 
> These days, make -j (>1) may well be safer than gcc -O(>1), but it still
> causes headaches for people with slower hardware and less memory. Yes, the
> list of ports that do this is very small, but it's still fairly lame. I do
> like proposed idea of a tunable -j number for usage across the tree.

I'd love to see the example pioneered by the qt port to become part of
the bsd.port.mk. And, the default number of jobs should be something
like double the number of processors. available. The port should then
need to define:
	PARALLEL_SAFE=	yes

I'd reject the "slower hardware" part of the argument, leaving only the
"less memory" part :) The ports (I try to add -j in my ports wherever
possible) build faster for more users that way, and _still build_ on
low memory machines.

	-mi



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message