Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 17:28:45 +0200 From: David Naylor <naylor.b.david@gmail.com> To: pav@freebsd.org Cc: pgollucci@p6m7g8.com, Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports) Message-ID: <200905251728.49483.naylor.b.david@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1243264441.37480.23.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> References: <20090522.195350.193746535.chat95@mac.com> <200905251011.16083.naylor.b.david@gmail.com> <1243264441.37480.23.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart6477592.zFpzlVOVi3
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
On Monday 25 May 2009 17:14:01 Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> David Naylor p=C3=AD=C5=A1e v po 25. 05. 2009 v 10:11 +0200:
> > > > > > > > This part looks OK, I wonder if there's any reason t ain't
> > > > > > > > like this now; Pav?
> > > > > > > > -.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER)
> > > > > > > > +MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER?=3D `${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
> > > > > > > > _MAKE_JOBS=3D -j${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER}
> > > > > > > > -.else
> > > > > > > > -_MAKE_JOBS=3D -j`${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
> > > > > > > > -.endif
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wouldn't that mean an evaluation of the backtick command in
> > > > > > > every make(1) invocation? That would be highly undesirable.
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe that is the case.
> > > >
> > > > Here is what I get with the patch applied (MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER not
> > > > defined): /usr/ports/editors/openoffice.org-3# make -V
> > > > MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER -V _MAKE_JOBS `/sbin/sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus`
> > > > -j`/sbin/sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus`
> > > >
> > > > Wouldn't this indicate that the backtick command is not being
> > > > evaluated?
> > >
> > > Seems correct. But explain again, why you need this change?
> >
> > Not all ports use make but are concurrent capable and require different
> > arguments to be passed which is why I needed to expose MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER
> > (since it is just a number) and why _MAKE_JOBS was not an option.
>
> Ok, how about doing a dirty hack and using ${_MAKE_JOBS:C/-j//} ?
> Then we wouldn't have to modify bsd.port.mk ..
That will work in the ooo3 case however in the ooo2 case it does condition =
on=20
its value (so at the very least the code will need to be shifted to the pre=
=20
section of the Makefile). =20
On an aside, if quite a few ports all require this 'hack' (and in the ooo2=
=20
case a further hack) shouldn't it be in a central location? [I have no ide=
a=20
on the number though]
--nextPart6477592.zFpzlVOVi3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)
iEYEABECAAYFAkoauTEACgkQUaaFgP9pFrJlGQCeOZE5MqW2gNu5BWjVakRvFdXo
pWYAn1aGcbyne+CAIJVFlGJbAAGh5m8T
=3/QP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart6477592.zFpzlVOVi3--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200905251728.49483.naylor.b.david>