From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 13 18:45:36 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 8A3E616A4CE; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:45:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailout09.sul.t-online.com (mailout09.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C738243D2D; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:45:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Received: from fwd04.aul.t-online.de by mailout09.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 1CT2tx-0007bi-00; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:45:33 +0100 Received: from Andro-Beta.Leidinger.net (TD9iD2ZQZe2u971IA9tPDPFtMHZ4df3G+uFSb0r1IpP-Sw8XnwS8kl@[217.229.213.27]) by fmrl04.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 1CT2ts-2IA0cy0; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:45:28 +0100 Received: from Magellan.Leidinger.net (Magellan.Leidinger.net [192.168.1.1]) iADIjktD019929; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:45:46 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:45:45 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger To: Ruslan Ermilov Message-ID: <20041113194545.667c5ae1@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20041113163723.GD40075@ip.net.ua> 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> <20041113163723.GD40075@ip.net.ua> 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: TD9iD2ZQZe2u971IA9tPDPFtMHZ4df3G+uFSb0r1IpP-Sw8XnwS8kl@t-dialin.net X-TOI-MSGID: 53ed82db-8dee-4101-a640-08e16fd09ea1 cc: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: Harti Brandt cc: current@freebsd.org cc: portmgr@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 18:45:36 -0000 On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:37:23 +0200 Ruslan Ermilov wrote: portmgr explicitly CCed because of the possible impact on support requests, fullquote to help those which aren't following the discussion. > 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 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). > > > 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. As a ports committer I see foot shooting potential here. This may build ports in parallel which aren't -j safe. I haven't build any port with -j since several years (I think the last time I did this, I was using 3-current) since too much ports failed to build. I haven't tested recently, so I don't know how much ports will break in this case. Personally I think we don't want this new behavior, but if portmgr likes this new behavior, I won't argue about it too (I know about it, so I'm able to workaround the problem in case I get confronted with this problem). 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