Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 01:19:37 -0300 From: Joseph Mingrone <jrm@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r422939 - in head/cad/gmsh: . files Message-ID: <86oa3681eu.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca> In-Reply-To: <7c99998c-31df-2fd7-d9ff-355adb043820@marino.st> (John Marino's message of "Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:24:09 -0500") References: <201609291915.u8TJFYnY043558@repo.freebsd.org> <5c5b4064-3037-8a29-9c73-6efc00d4355f@marino.st> <86shsi8dri.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca> <7c99998c-31df-2fd7-d9ff-355adb043820@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> writes: > On 9/29/2016 18:52, Joseph Mingrone wrote: >> Hi John, >> John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> writes: >>> On 9/29/2016 14:15, Joseph Mingrone wrote: >>>> Author: jrm Date: Thu Sep 29 19:15:34 2016 New Revision: 422939 >>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/422939 >>>> Log: Update cad/gmsh to 2.13.2; fix knob issue; other changes >>>> - Remove MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE=yes >>> I'm curious about this one. Was this specifically addressed in the >>> release notes? or in other words, how did you confirm this port is >>> now jobs safe? >> I looked at the commit log, but there was no mention of the reason >> why this was added. I ran the build through 'poudriere testport' and >> looked over the output. Should I be checking something else? > In my opinion, to remove MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE, first the unsafe operation of the > previous version has to be identified and then it has to be confirmed that the > new version has explicitly fixed it. If you don't have proof of the fix, then > conservatively you have to assume it's still not jobs-safe. A single positive > build isn't enough to change the setting. It could only show under a heavily > loaded server, and only some times, for example, and your run didn't provide > similar conditions. > It's unfortunate the commit log didn't detail the original problem. I seem to > recall also hitting jobs unsafe problems with this port and I would not be > surprised if they come back now. Ah, thanks for clarifying. I'll add that to my ports FAQ. I just added it back. ...better to prioritize reliability over a quicker build. Joseph --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJX7efZXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ1NUIwOTNBNzI2QzM4ODU1NzEyMkJBRDUz NkE0MEM4M0IwRDZFRjlFAAoJEDakDIOw1u+erJkP/AjUHLhwFN/zNHHM0Oygr8lG ZYT7UZW5yQhVuiKQ+WbblDzvpyPR0PkvgOkshCg4mVaPQhTJhEks7jNxFJw2a+hj jujFt9mjWqghhuRKBOPSsu62YjhQGvvIg9wf5T++WXNNRUSQW8yuDJEFTO4aI12S Fgu4JDPQH6Jwu3pzxs51gheTRdd2qrg6RpK5AqtOFmoBQtYvgmDB8FyaS4TH/T1f Rm9f7w0cxdkrOn3L1Dxp5SBKxULJjQ21SNZPprCqtWS9uuraNadqfxCDo2OX2bmp nB0MBfBiBRpyPAS0ydKlZTENbjlsEJz6U7q8NLdSttwy7x0Eo/MlXRe13EH8wYy9 NhimwAHfX2dMM609hWaIXHMb89DFPZs2tnxPri8Pbwl/zxt7/gwy+9v7JciHfudK VdTipn9ukr8QjLucHKaq5bGdpTINLXkai9K6MywA6f7k03ImztZImJYH8aS9wlIa PH3mQo+4HIUWRvArQgIyW2l4Ld4kf/4UYBPBqdwDITZfcWjEzzpB26VeHUHieL59 oSSia5ER6HE1qlC/qWOvuPstVayntYeGDz6mfc85dvywJvaoTqY3OAWfDOyNgUYK kOBWaiob/CR60yx0F0tL51SgLEy3JEIE3Gjv5yEnG3s/Jg8wkzwIhkdnHQ/wypuA Haf5MFYk6KjF67OPD73V =b+11 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86oa3681eu.fsf>