From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 15 08:10:06 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 B07FC16A4CE; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:10:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from n33.kp.t-systems-sfr.com (n33.kp.t-systems-sfr.com [129.247.16.33]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9123C43D49; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:10:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from harti@freebsd.org) Received: from n81.sp.op.dlr.de (n81g.sp.op.dlr.de [129.247.163.1]) iAF89QU600362; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:09:26 +0100 Received: from zeus.nt.op.dlr.de (zeus.nt.op.dlr.de [129.247.173.3]) iAF89QI229786; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:09:26 +0100 Received: from beagle.kn.op.dlr.de (opkndnwsbsd178 [129.247.173.178]) by zeus.nt.op.dlr.de (8.11.7+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id iAF8A0u29719; Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:10:01 +0100 (MET) Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:15:00 +0100 (CET) From: Harti Brandt X-X-Sender: brandt@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de To: Alexander Leidinger In-Reply-To: <20041113092215.7a40f133@Magellan.Leidinger.net> Message-ID: <20041115091059.L51863@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> References: <6857.1100271323@critter.freebsd.dk> <20041112160137.X42945@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <20041112171024.P42945@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <20041113092215.7a40f133@Magellan.Leidinger.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Harti Brandt List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:10:06 -0000 On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Alexander Leidinger wrote: AL>On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:11:37 +0100 (CET) AL>Harti Brandt wrote: AL> AL>> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 Alexander@Leidinger.net wrote: AL>> AL>> > Zitat von Harti Brandt : AL>> > AL>> >> PK>>If yes: we have some ports which aren't -j safe, so this would violate AL>> >> PK>>POLA. AL>> >> PK> AL>> >> PK>That is what "make -B" is for. AL>> >> AL>> >> Or .NOTPARALLEL AL>> > AL>> > I'm not talking about /usr/ports/category/port/Makefile, I'm talking about AL>> > /usr/ports/category/port/work/tarball_dir/**/Makefile. We don't have AL>> > control about those Makefiles. AL>> > AL>> > As much as I like a flag in the Makefile of a port which indicates AL>> > that a port can't be build with -j, we don't have this and the last time AL>> > this topic was discussed there was a strong objection to something like AL>> > this. AL>> > AL>> > So this change may break procedures which worked so far. AL>> AL>> How? If you specify -j on the port's make the -j gets passed down to all AL>> sub-makes via MAKEFLAGS and they use it. The difference is just that the AL>> overall number of jobs started is now limited by the original -j. AL> AL>In my first mail I made an example where a portupgrade is in between two AL>make processes. make runs several portupgrade processes in parallel and AL>portupgrade calls make. AFAIK this doesn't result in in an invocation of AL>portupgrades child-make with -j. With phk's changes the child-make of AL>portupgrade uses the FIFO (at least this is what I read implicitly in AL>phk's response above). Unless you reset MAKEFLAGS along the call path to the portupgrade's make they'll see the -j, because the top-level make will stuff the -j into MAKEFLAGS and that is probably inherited through portupgrade. harti