Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:37:23 +0200 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2] Message-ID: <20041113163723.GD40075@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <20041113092215.7a40f133@Magellan.Leidinger.net> 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> <20041113092215.7a40f133@Magellan.Leidinger.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 09:22:15AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:11:37 +0100 (CET) > Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 Alexander@Leidinger.net wrote: > > > > > Zitat von Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org>: > > > > > >> 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). > Yes. The presence of MAKE_JOBS_FIFO in environment causes the new make(1) to run in parallel mode when none of -j and -B options are specified (either explicitly or through the MAKEFLAGS envariable). I mentioned it to Poul-Henning that I believe it was a mistake, but he disagrees, and I don't want to argue about it. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBljhDqRfpzJluFF4RAt/LAJ4iRzGr6bFjelbvoiwehQ7HNpjeegCdEPbY T4hANXwPQiGxmlj9Bp6f41A= =l9zZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041113163723.GD40075>