From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 20 19:03:34 2010 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 1C187106566B for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:03:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from varga.michal@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f218.google.com (mail-fx0-f218.google.com [209.85.220.218]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0C7D8FC0A for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:03:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm10 with SMTP id 10so2273896fxm.34 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:03:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=313tAs4Ul6PuDZv3A3pJeSFfyBEtpvMfV+9AYy1Zu0E=; b=kFrWQSbzXCF3z0pX7c+S7/nD1zc8wDXHC8Fgi6BlJ/K0sZXFi6Gl5+7M0RLsXm5xDD TTIi2UfQwzspUZCLQFMHxSiKsky8ofwcsft3AfLa2qoBkbcKpSbANHPHcSgEevgdmDTS 2+io1to7Kb2FDo1YTJnEiNrK1642o9mt+NqZo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=pDOPTwkgdio5/3xj49nuUz+eJ7d5NrZmpcIplM/T+lHVLeFwRm3sHYjuDXlemnTCfm LHWx7ffFzmgNzx4PFdstppY0NBEjJ2GR2dmx+8BC6Y1q97DiX7mTbeDHOYYhJiZ6uiGw dbxPcPFED9ameXP1ufP7zxr4iWfRPtQbwkejY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.32.206 with SMTP id e14mr387331fad.3.1264014212374; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:03:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4B574E99.5070309@acm.poly.edu> References: <3f1fd1ea1001200529h5a0e41b9kda9fc62410c3daa@mail.gmail.com> <3f1fd1ea1001200639p1faa623tc9cb01da75c0781@mail.gmail.com> <3f1fd1ea1001200729j6ff63560n8906dbeb65a9e2e4@mail.gmail.com> <4B574E99.5070309@acm.poly.edu> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:03:32 +0100 Message-ID: <3f1fd1ea1001201103m3c5225c9tbe8cec0f7e6b8562@mail.gmail.com> From: Michal Varga To: Boris Kochergin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Helmut Schneider , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to upgrade perl 5.8 to 5.10? 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: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:03:34 -0000 >>> Well, it's a dedicated blade after all :) And those 8 cores seem >>> pretty nasty, I'm envious. >>> >> >> Well, afaik I even cannot use more than one CPU when building ports. >> There were plans/rumors that this would change. Does anyone know more >> about it? >> Sure you can, as Boris (below) linked, this happened long time ago, especially: "You don't need to do anything to enable the new feature. Whitelisted ports will automatically make use of all processors available in your computer." Most large ports I have seen (and use) luckily take advantage of all available processors during build (which completely sucks for desktop systems, but then, you normally shouldn't do that on a station where you try to work, so I'm fine with that). There's no way you'd be able to build 450 ports in 45 minutes if you were using only one CPU/core. > It has happened: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2009-March/053736.html > > I believe *dependencies* of a port will be compiled using one process (and > thus CPU) at a time, however. > Interesting, are you sure this really happens? At least I understand you mean that - let's say - when i choose to compile, i.e. www/webkit directly, it will use all available processors (which it does, all the time), but when I try to compile, say, www/epiphany, which pulls www/webkit as a dependency, it will get built without MAKE_JOBS_SAFE, locked to a single processor? I can test in a short while if that's really the way, just asking, if I got you right.. m.