From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 13 06:07:55 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B94106566C for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:07:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ota@j.email.ne.jp) Received: from mail.asahi-net.or.jp (mail1.asahi-net.or.jp [202.224.39.197]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67FB08FC20 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:07:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ota@j.email.ne.jp) Received: from localhost (pool-72-81-124-193.phlapa.east.verizon.net [72.81.124.193]) by mail.asahi-net.or.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D6752161; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:07:52 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:07:39 -0400 From: Yoshihiro Ota To: Benjamin Lutz Message-Id: <20080313020739.7924e705.ota@j.email.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <200803121545.50921.mail@maxlor.com> References: <200803121311.51383.mail@maxlor.com> <200803121545.50921.mail@maxlor.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.8; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Florent Thoumie 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: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:07:55 -0000 On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:45:46 +0100 Benjamin Lutz wrote: > On Wednesday 12 March 2008 14:01:57 Florent Thoumie wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:11 PM, 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? > > > > 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. > > Because in requires modifications of individual port Makefiles? Or is there > something else in it that you don't like? > snip... > Also, the amount of work required to gete an advantage from this change is > actually not as high as you think. Of the 20k ports we have, only the big > ones (e.g., kde*) gain a substantial benefit from -j building. Small ports > that only compile for a few seconds anyway can be left as they are now. You may do better by or together with ports+, http://uyota.asablo.jp/blog/cat/portsplus/ . It allows to fetch and build independent ports at parallel. So, not only big ones but also small ones make benefit. It does not build ports in parallel. So, it won't break anything as they are now. Cheers, Hiro