Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:03:02 +0000 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/113132 (make -j patch) Message-ID: <20080312190302.5bb86081@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <200803121831.43296.mail@maxlor.com> References: <200803121311.51383.mail@maxlor.com> <20080312154725.705e141c@gumby.homeunix.com.> <200803121831.43296.mail@maxlor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:31:36 +0100 Benjamin Lutz <mail@maxlor.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 12 March 2008 16:47:25 RW wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:11:51 +0100 > > 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? > > > > 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. > > portconf and pkgtools.conf are files that are used by tools external > to the base ports system (portmaster and portupgrade). The ports > makefiles do not read them. . Portconf is a simple script that's executed from /etc/make.conf, so it gets picked-up by everything. > The traditional place to put port > configuration info is /etc/make.conf Yes, conditional definition in make.conf was the "etc" > Since using the whitelist is not intended to be an officially > supported feature, but only exists to make life a bit easier for > people who are debugging the ports or willing to experiment, I expect > that on 99% of FreeBSD systems, the whitelist will not be specified > at all. But it's actually easier to do it consistently with the existing conventions, than the way you have it > I therefore see no reason to increase the complexity of the > whitelist parsing code by introducing non-make-compatible syntax. It eliminates the whitelist altogether. A FORCE_MAKE_JOBS flag would simply be ORed with the ALLOW_MAKE_JOBS flag. The also allows users to define their own logic in make.conf, for example to force parallel building for all ports that aren't on a user-defined blacklist.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080312190302.5bb86081>