Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:44:42 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Makoto MATSUSHITA <matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: groff breaks "make -j N buildworld" Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104200640250.12496-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <20010419175353.A13567@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 11:12:24PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > [...] > > > IIRC, it is assumed that "make -jX install (where X > 1)" _doesn't_ work. > > > I've heard why, but I've forgotten :-) > > > > Right. One case where it doesn't work is installing /bin/sh with the > > default install flags. /bin/sh gets clobbered, so anything that attempts > > to use it concurrently doesn't work. In particular, a concurrent > > sub-make may fail. This problem is avoided for some very important > > install targets like ld.so by adding -C to INSTALLFLAGS to give an > > atomic installation. Atomic installation (but not -C) should be the > > default. > > > This one seems like an easy task, and this is suspicious... How about > the attached patch? I have tested it lightly, and haven't found any > problems. Will the `make -j32 installworld' of -CURRENT be enough > test to commit this and remove -B from Makefile.inc1? Testing several times with different -j values is a good idea, since the order of commands can vary with the -j value and the timing. > Is the atomic install the only known issue for not functional > `make -jN install'? It's the only one that I can think of now. There are probably more in the perl install :-). Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0104200640250.12496-100000>