From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Feb  8 23:58:25 2007
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 556C316A402
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  8 Feb 2007 23:58:25 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu)
Received: from mxout2.cac.washington.edu (mxout2.cac.washington.edu
	[140.142.33.4])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C9313C49D
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu,  8 Feb 2007 23:58:25 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu)
Received: from hymn08.u.washington.edu (hymn08.u.washington.edu
	[140.142.13.238])
	by mxout2.cac.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW06.09) with ESMTP
	id l18Nw9IA029115
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO)
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2007 15:58:10 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by hymn08.u.washington.edu (8.13.7+UW06.06/8.13.7+UW06.09) with ESMTP
	id l18Nw9Pu024042
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2007 15:58:09 -0800
X-Auth-Received: from [192.55.52.1] by hymn08.u.washington.edu via HTTP;
	Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:58:09 PST
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 15:58:09 -0800 (PST)
From: youshi10@u.washington.edu
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <8cb6106e0702081538r6717ccadwe13d7f0c5b0ed5f5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0702081558090.26886@hymn08.u.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-PMX-Version: 5.3.0.289146, Antispam-Engine: 2.5.0.283055,
	Antispam-Data: 2007.2.8.154433
X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='NO_REAL_NAME 0, __CT 0,
	__CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0,
	__MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0'
Subject: Re: Intel Core Duo. SMP kernel but still only 50% load while using
 make on ports...
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:58:25 -0000

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Josh Carroll wrote:

>> You know, it'd be cool if there were a knob in the ports framework that
>> allowed port maintainers to specify this, something like PARALLEL_MAKE=yes
>> in the Makefile ...
>> 
>> Or is that a dumb idea for some reason I don't understand?
>
> I personally don't think it's a dumb idea at all. The problem is the
> sheer volume of ports out there. I don't see why the hooks couldn't be
> put in place, though, and let the port maintainers add to it slowly.
>
> Josh

I agree with both you guys. Having this option would greatly reduce compile times which would be beneficial for everyone.

-Garrett