Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:48:38 +0300 From: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru> To: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP multi processor compilations for everyone Message-ID: <20090327124838.GM1964@hades.panopticon> In-Reply-To: <1238139614.71596.2.camel@hood.oook.cz> References: <1237901632.1849.19.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <20090326174632.GB19722@hades.panopticon> <1238108060.268.1.camel@hood.oook.cz> <20090327010223.GK1964@hades.panopticon> <1238139614.71596.2.camel@hood.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Pav Lucistnik (pav@FreeBSD.org) wrote:
> > second
> > also improves MAKE_JOBS_* handling, shortening it a bit and exposing
> > MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER to the ports, so it can be used for other build systems
> > without having to parse out -j from _MAKE_JOBS (and defaults to 1 if
> > jobs support is disabled).
>
> This one I cannot accept, because it adds back != call I made a big
> effort to avoid. We can't have one != call per port during building
> INDEX.
Understood. I still think it'd be nice to expose number of jobs as a
plain number to the ports.
> > Also, [ x != x${BUILD_FAIL_MESSAGE} ] thing seems to be a bit unsafe,
> > and inconsistent to IGNORE/BROKEN/... vars, in which we don't use
> > quotes.
>
> It's consistent with CONFIGURE_FAIL_MESSAGE. Why are you removing the
> parenthesis around the ${ECHO_CMD} ${BUILD_FAIL_MESSAGE}, BTW?
> Because they are present in do-configure target too - should they be
> removed there too?
I just didn't like them :) Are they really needed around single command?
--
Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D
amdmi3@amdmi3.ru ..: jabber: amdmi3@jabber.ru http://www.amdmi3.ru
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090327124838.GM1964>