From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 7 06:55:05 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF4D837B401 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 06:55:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mired.org (ip68-97-54-220.ok.ok.cox.net [68.97.54.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B444F43FBF for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 06:55:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mwm-dated-1050155704.8f2e40@mired.org) Received: (qmail 537 invoked from network); 7 Apr 2003 13:55:04 -0000 Received: from localhost.mired.org (HELO guru.mired.org) (127.0.0.1) by localhost.mired.org with SMTP; 7 Apr 2003 13:55:04 -0000 Received: by guru.mired.org (tmda-inject, from uid 100); Mon, 07 Apr 2003 08:55:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16017.33591.472882.510109@guru.mired.org> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 08:55:03 -0500 To: Kris Kennaway In-Reply-To: <20030407001131.GA54382@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <20030407015558.00007425.are-harald.brenne@econ.uib.no> <20030407001131.GA54382@rot13.obsecurity.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`; h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ From: Mike Meyer X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.73 (Jet Pilot) cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When is it safe to use -jX with make? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 13:55:06 -0000 In <20030407001131.GA54382@rot13.obsecurity.org>, Kris Kennaway typed: > > Searching the archives I came across a discussion from december > > concluding ports should not be built with -jX. Does this apply to > > all ports? > Most of them, probably. Actually, most of them are safe to build with -jX (and I'm sorry if that's what you meant). I had portupgrade running -j4 for a while, and a half-dozen or so of the 60 I upgraded had problems. The nasty thing is that some of the failure modes involve makes looping forever across the same part of the process. Unfortunately, the only way to found out is to try it and see. I gave up on it, and just let portupgrade run unattended. It's faster than dealing with the breakage. http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.