From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 3 13:23:55 2008 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 83B071065675 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:23:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sem@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail.ciam.ru (ns.ciam.ru [213.247.195.75]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A0C8FC28 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:23:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sem@FreeBSD.org) Received: from dhcp250-210.yandex.ru ([87.250.250.210]) by mail.ciam.ru with esmtpa (Exim 4.x) id 1KEOmx-000OXx-Tr; Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:23:55 +0400 Message-ID: <486CD2E8.50505@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:23:52 +0400 From: Sergey Matveychuk User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Albert.Shih@obspm.fr References: <20080702232551.GA3204@pcjas.obspm.fr> In-Reply-To: <20080702232551.GA3204@pcjas.obspm.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: FreeBSD-Ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Idea for next portupgrade 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: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:23:55 -0000 Albert Shih wrote: > Hi all > > I want to thanks the dev of portupgrade. It save lots of my time and > work fine. > > But I just think about our new computer with the lot of core, a standard > server have dual proc with quad-core that's mean 8 core availble. > > > In the next version of portupgrade, IMHO it's good idea to have option > to make portupgrade working with many proc. Because what I known many ports > cannot by compile with «-j8» option. In that case when we make > > portupgrade --all -b > > we have just one compilation. It's enough when we have 1 or 2 procs. But > now with 8 or more proc.... > > If portupgrade can calculate the depency and launch many ports build in > same time for non-depending ports it's can be wonderful. > > But it's just a idea..... Maybe it's already in the roadmap ... I'm sure it's a good idea. I'd use it too. But I have a very little free time with my current employment. So I can't implement it. Sorry. If somebody could, I would take patches with pleasure. -- Dixi. Sem.