Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 09:19:46 -0400 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> To: "J. Hellenthal" <jhell@DataIX.net> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> Subject: Re: portmaster comments Message-ID: <20110314131946.GA37317@atarininja.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103140458100.7570@qvfongpu.qngnvk.ybpny> References: <20110314003535.GC5392@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <4D7D653A.6090703@dougbarton.us> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103140458100.7570@qvfongpu.qngnvk.ybpny>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:08:26AM -0400, J. Hellenthal wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 20:45, dougb@ wrote:
> > On 3/13/2011 5:35 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >> Hi Doug,
> >>
> >> I'd like to raise a couple of nits with portmaster (primarily a wish
> >> for more configurability):
> >>
> >> 1) In v3.0, you added code to nice(1) all make(1) invocations. In some
> >> cases, the default niceness does not suit me (in particular, I'd often
> >> prefer '0' to '10'). Would it be possible to add an option to control
> >> the priority?
> >>
> >> 2) In v3.6, you added a "find $WRKDIRPREFIX ..." to the cleanup. For
> >> various reasons, I have _lots_ of unrelated stuff under that tree and
> >> so the find(1) takes an unacceptably long time to run. It would be
> >> nice to restrict that search to $WRKDIRPREFIX${.CURDIR} and have an
> >> option to disable it completely.
> >
> > Neither is likely to happen. :) I may however remove 1, it didn't really
> > help much, if at all. As for 2, my suggestion is to have a WRKDIRPREFIX for
> > development stuff, and a different one for portmaster. It's pretty easy to do
> > with a make.conf knob searching for whether UPGRADE_TOOL is set to
>
> This doesn't have any effect for,
> /usr/ports/lang/python/Makefile:31:.if defined(USE_PORTMASTER)
>
> Does it ?
It has an effect on how the upgrade-site-packages target works. I wrote
it specifically because I didn't want to have to install portupgrade
just to get the upgrade-site-packages target to work.
> It would be real nice if these things were somewhat in sync for their
> intended use.
I don't know what you mean by this.
> Ill BCC python@ for the heads up on ``UPGRADE_TOOL'' I would prefer this
> personally over USE_ vars. But is this common among portupgrade and
> portmaster ? If not can something be done in tree to decipher it into what
> is supposed to be set to avoid confusion ?
I don't know what you mean by this.
I think you might be confusing two different issues. The USE_PORTMASTER
knob was put in place specifically for the upgrade-site-packages target,
which is not something called during the normal build process by any
upgrading tool. I'm not sure how using UPGRADE_TOOL will help this at
all.
-- WXS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110314131946.GA37317>