From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 25 15:27:57 2009 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 91E5A106564A; Mon, 25 May 2009 15:27:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from naylor.b.david@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f159.google.com (mail-ew0-f159.google.com [209.85.219.159]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF368FC15; Mon, 25 May 2009 15:27:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from naylor.b.david@gmail.com) Received: by ewy3 with SMTP id 3so3223116ewy.43 for ; Mon, 25 May 2009 08:27:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:organization:to:subject :date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=iaL1A8WpivGGE8tsE3vQZwnd6H1QNQyqJPSbvTj4IWU=; b=OhUo0RY527vgs87KIrglbyzwXHMyjLs3GNPREBaeNsOD8ZuqLEyFmPsMHMr+FmoBJb JI0C4sTMkZBRNjV389paI8Xp+Ahbedk+ZXvoplPTfU8d1Nq+y4+6QojP1ndaWq6xtDze bdtkA386KIJMISRoAVLAGUN1+kRJpdvAdG8cc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:organization:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references :in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :message-id; b=kIgli60g0lmOHAVlFZtqOvPVenlciHPON/kQtogs6u9IfyAiRB1/0lE5yVvBut6Plp 534nBAF8jU9Qm9/WFpTeRlC1Zju/g3iuWCWZwZIGZGPk2ON0JtmifVZiAIfQnCUMy1Eg QZ5rhio0mRht/OD8mh0STQsFtb61PbYMp44cg= Received: by 10.216.10.74 with SMTP id 52mr799030weu.226.1243265275229; Mon, 25 May 2009 08:27:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?0.0.0.0? ([196.34.241.123]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28sm4362693eyg.14.2009.05.25.08.27.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 25 May 2009 08:27:54 -0700 (PDT) From: David Naylor Organization: Private To: pav@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 17:28:45 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <20090522.195350.193746535.chat95@mac.com> <200905251011.16083.naylor.b.david@gmail.com> <1243264441.37480.23.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> In-Reply-To: <1243264441.37480.23.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart6477592.zFpzlVOVi3"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200905251728.49483.naylor.b.david@gmail.com> Cc: pgollucci@p6m7g8.com, Ion-Mihai Tetcu , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports) 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: Mon, 25 May 2009 15:27:57 -0000 --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--