Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:30:22 -0700 From: Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com> To: Anonymous <swell.k@gmail.com> Cc: Greg Lewis <glewis@freebsd.org>, David Naylor <naylor.b.david@gmail.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS and openjdk6 Message-ID: <20100828213022.GA78573@misty.eyesbeyond.com> In-Reply-To: <86lj7q31s8.fsf@gmail.com> References: <201006251808.29467.naylor.b.david@gmail.com> <861vazh881.fsf@gmail.com> <8662z58gid.fsf@gmail.com> <201008281428.06609.naylor.b.david@gmail.com> <20100828184017.GA78278@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <86lj7q31s8.fsf@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:44:39AM +0400, Anonymous wrote:
> Greg Lewis <glewis@eyesbeyond.com> writes:
> > I would argue that overriding a private variable is a hack (other ports
> > doing it doesn't make it not a hack).
>
> You could've spoke up in ports/148754 about your concern in order for
> portmgr@ to notice. The PR strived to be less intrusive than divorcing
> build jobs from make jobs. Besides, I think adding more clutter to
> Makefiles defeats purpose of having stuff in bsd.port.mk.
In that case, whichever way you cut it, we're deliberately trying to
circumvent what is in bsd.port.mk.
> > Alternative patch attached which seems to achieve the same result from
> > my perspective without overriding _MAKE_JOBS.
>
> Hardcoding kern.smp.cpus and ignoring MAKE_JOBS_SAFE/UNSAFE doesn't seem
> like a less hacky solution. I'd argue that it's more confusing because
> MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE is not equal to DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS.
The patch I attached (a) does not ignore MAKE_JOBS_{SAFE,UNSAFE} and (b)
the first patch similarly uses DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS.
The first patch does the following:
1. Sets MAKE_JOBS_SAFE _erroneously_ (the port is _not_ MAKE_JOBS_SAFE)
purely so it can force the setting of MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER.
2. Overrides passing of -j to the make invocation by fiddling the private
variable _MAKE_JOBS, which it has to do because of (1).
The one I just provided
1. Leaves the port correctly marked as MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE and doesn't mess
with any private variables.
2. Respects MAKE_JOB_NUMBER if it is set and otherwise uses the sysctl
kern.smp.cpus, the latter being what the port _already_ does.
> > Index: Makefile
> > ===================================================================
> > RCS file: /var/fcvs/ports/java/openjdk6/Makefile,v
> > retrieving revision 1.28
> > diff -u -r1.28 Makefile
> > --- Makefile 15 Aug 2010 05:23:06 -0000 1.28
> > +++ Makefile 28 Aug 2010 18:27:44 -0000
> > @@ -147,8 +147,14 @@
> > USE_DISPLAY= yes
> > .endif
>
> > -BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER!= ${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus
> > +.if !defined(DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS)
> > +.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER)
> > +BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER= ${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER}
> > +.else
> > +BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER= `${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
> > +.endif
> > MAKE_ENV+= HOTSPOT_BUILD_JOBS=${BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER}
> > +.endif
>
> > COPYDIRS= \
> > hotspot/src/os/linux/launcher \
--
Greg Lewis Email : glewis@eyesbeyond.com
Eyes Beyond Web : http://www.eyesbeyond.com
Information Technology FreeBSD : glewis@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100828213022.GA78573>