From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 13 08:22:04 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7002716A4CE; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 08:22:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailout11.sul.t-online.com (mailout11.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9770443D3F; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 08:22:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from fwd02.aul.t-online.de by mailout11.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 1CStAX-00045O-01; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:22:01 +0100 Received: from Andro-Beta.Leidinger.net (ZZWU0yZAwegqSKFTGWdsR-lRmqa8aGWSqrowr0Hm48uuSBQlStNBrA@[217.229.213.27]) by fmrl02.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 1CStAU-0maysS0; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:21:58 +0100 Received: from Magellan.Leidinger.net (Magellan.Leidinger.net [192.168.1.1]) iAD8MFWH001877; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:22:15 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:22:15 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger To: Harti Brandt Message-ID: <20041113092215.7a40f133@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20041112171024.P42945@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> References: <6857.1100271323@critter.freebsd.dk> <20041112160137.X42945@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <1100274897.4194dcd1d67d6@netchild.homeip.net> <20041112171024.P42945@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12b (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd6.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ID: ZZWU0yZAwegqSKFTGWdsR-lRmqa8aGWSqrowr0Hm48uuSBQlStNBrA@t-dialin.net X-TOI-MSGID: a6caf1dc-bd55-49b0-a7c0-b128a0c5961e cc: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 08:22:04 -0000 On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:11:37 +0100 (CET) Harti Brandt wrote: > On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 Alexander@Leidinger.net wrote: > > > Zitat von Harti Brandt : > > > >> PK>>If yes: we have some ports which aren't -j safe, so this would violate > >> PK>>POLA. > >> PK> > >> PK>That is what "make -B" is for. > >> > >> Or .NOTPARALLEL > > > > I'm not talking about /usr/ports/category/port/Makefile, I'm talking about > > /usr/ports/category/port/work/tarball_dir/**/Makefile. We don't have > > control about those Makefiles. > > > > As much as I like a flag in the Makefile of a port which indicates > > that a port can't be build with -j, we don't have this and the last time > > this topic was discussed there was a strong objection to something like > > this. > > > > So this change may break procedures which worked so far. > > How? If you specify -j on the port's make the -j gets passed down to all > sub-makes via MAKEFLAGS and they use it. The difference is just that the > overall number of jobs started is now limited by the original -j. In my first mail I made an example where a portupgrade is in between two make processes. make runs several portupgrade processes in parallel and portupgrade calls make. AFAIK this doesn't result in in an invocation of portupgrades child-make with -j. With phk's changes the child-make of portupgrade uses the FIFO (at least this is what I read implicitly in phk's response above). Bye, Alexander. -- The best things in life are free, but the expensive ones are still worth a look. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7