From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 23 08:05:06 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93A7F16A4E0 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:05:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.de [213.165.64.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F36A43D49 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:05:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 23 Jul 2006 08:05:03 -0000 Received: from p54A7DFBE.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.12]) [84.167.223.190] by mail.gmx.net (mp008) with SMTP; 23 Jul 2006 10:05:03 +0200 X-Authenticated: #5465401 Message-ID: <44C32D90.3080008@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:04:32 +0200 From: "[LoN]Kamikaze" Organization: Lords of Nightmare User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060720) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Linimon References: <44C1F68E.80601@gmx.de> <44C2096E.4080701@FreeBSD.org> <44C20B29.30308@gmx.de> <20060722182659.U60076@woozle.rinet.ru> <44C24549.4030703@gmx.de> <20060722211326.GB8547@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <20060722211326.GB8547@soaustin.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: Dmitry Morozovsky , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Sergey Matveychuk Subject: Re: portinstall breaks with -m "-j 4" 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: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 08:05:06 -0000 Mark Linimon wrote: >> BTW, I apologize for this is not at all a portupgrade issue, but an issue >> of the ports system. > > It is an issue with individual ports -- actually not the "port" (e.g. > Makefile framework, pkg-*) but the individual applications (IIUC). > >> Well, at least the ports system itself should not be broken able to work >> with this. With larger ports I manage to reduce build times by 40% with >> distcc and a second machine. As far as I see it the number of ports >> breaking is rather low. > > Please feel free to suggest a framework (complete with regression test > framework) where the infrastructure code can "learn" which ports are safe. > I think it's going to be a harder problem than you think it is. Note that > "appears to work" and "can be shown to work under arbitrary build > circumstances for all users" are IMHO going to be two very different > classes of problem -- and the latter will need to be solved before it > can be used on the package-building cluster. I do not expect anyone to check weather ports support it or not. I can track this for myself in my make.conf, but the problem for me is that the ports framework itself doesn't support it. I am able to work around the broken install target with this: .if defined(THREADS) .if !make(*install) .MAKEFLAGS: -j ${THREADS} .else USE_SUBMAKE= yes MAKE_ARGS:= -j ${THREADS} .NOTPARALLEL:: .endif .endif But 'make -j N config' is also broken (the config dialogue cannot see the size of the terminal and does not receive key events) and I did not find a workaround for this so far.