From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 25 11:49:54 2009 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 C10101065698; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:49:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from arved@FreeBSD.org) Received: from inci.arved.priv.at (cl-1383.ham-01.de.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:6f8:900:566::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 501B68FC4D; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:49:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from arved@FreeBSD.org) Received: from ferdinand.arved.priv.at (ferdinand-gif1.arved.priv.at [IPv6:2001:6f8:13fb::2]) by inci.arved.priv.at (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2PBnlNF016886; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:49:52 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from arved@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [IPv6:2001:6f8:13fb:3:20d:93ff:fe75:d4cc] (minimac.arved.priv.at [IPv6:2001:6f8:13fb:3:20d:93ff:fe75:d4cc]) by ferdinand.arved.priv.at (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n2PBnfiU080950; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:49:47 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from arved@FreeBSD.org) In-Reply-To: <49C937F1.4000406@FreeBSD.org> References: <49C937F1.4000406@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Tilman Linneweh Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:48:39 +0100 To: Doug Barton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Cc: Tilman Linneweh , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_SAFE with gmake 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, 25 Mar 2009 11:49:56 -0000 On Mar 24, 2009, at 20:43, Doug Barton wrote: > I'm testing my ports for MAKE_JOBS_SAFE-ness, and came across this > message when building xscreensaver (which uses gmake): > > gmake[1]: warning: jobserver unavailable: using -j1. Add `+' to > parent make rule. > > I have zero gmake fu, can anyone help me make sense of that? The good > news is that the build finished successfully ... I have noticed that this happens if somewhere in the Buildsystem a sub-make is called with "make"/"gmake" instead of "$(MAKE)"