From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 12 16:15:16 2008 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 A424D1065670 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:15:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06+T6=44283e9a@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from turtle-out.mxes.net (turtle-out.mxes.net [216.86.168.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812F38FC24 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:15:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06+T6=44283e9a@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from mxout-04.mxes.net (mxout-04.mxes.net [216.86.168.179]) by turtle-in.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 277F5163F6C for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:47:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com. (unknown [87.81.140.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D60D05A8 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:47:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:47:25 +0000 From: RW To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20080312154725.705e141c@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <200803121311.51383.mail@maxlor.com> References: <200803121311.51383.mail@maxlor.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.3.1 (GTK+ 2.12.8; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: ports/113132 (make -j patch) 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: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:15:16 -0000 On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:11:51 +0100 Benjamin Lutz 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? > > Cheers > Benjamin I'm not keen on the way MAKE_JOBS_WHITELIST is implemented as a list. It seems to be out of step with the way similar problems are handled elsewhere. I would have expected a simple flag that can be set per port using portsconf, pkgtools.conf, etc. This is more of a bikeshed issue, but the term MAKE_JOBS reflects implementation (gmake -j) rather than function, and its meaning isn't obvious the way something like PARALLEL_BUILD would be.