From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 26 18:12:20 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C513610656D5; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:12:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cpghost@cordula.ws) Received: from fw.farid-hajji.net (fw.farid-hajji.net [213.146.115.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0398C8FC0C; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:12:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cpghost@cordula.ws) Received: from phenom.cordula.ws (phenom [192.168.254.60]) by fw.farid-hajji.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C019335C4B; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:12:16 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:14:21 +0100 From: cpghost To: Mel Message-ID: <20090126181421.GA1472@phenom.cordula.ws> References: <20090125214457.GA4568@phenom.cordula.ws> <8cb6106e0901251422q1412ed38gd14f7591d4dfcabd@mail.gmail.com> <497D4EA6.1020100@FreeBSD.org> <200901252241.05483.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200901252241.05483.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Cc: Doug Barton , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: make -jN build with portmaster X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:12:21 -0000 On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:41:05PM -0900, Mel wrote: > On Sunday 25 January 2009 20:48:22 Doug Barton wrote: > > Josh Carroll wrote: > > > What I do is the following via make.conf, > > > > I think this is a good solution. Given that incredible foot-shooting > > power of the -j stuff I am not inclined to add something like this to > > portmaster, not even as an "advanced" option. Yes, I understand the problem with that. The make.conf solution is good enough for now. ;) > Given the fact that the build target is presumably -j safe (as far as the > ports system is concerned), it would be nice to have a BUILD_JOBS in > Mk/bsd.port.mk similar to INDEX_JOBS that is already there. Port maintainers > then can also set WITHOUT_PARALLEL (or USE_PARALLEL=NO etc) for ports that > break by themselves (f.e. www/lynx, editors/vim). > portmaster should then have no problem setting BUILD_JOBS on request. That would be absolutely perfect! At least, big ports (www/firefox3 etc...) that take a long time to compile could use USE_PARALLEL=YES right now (or the solution with make.conf) if they are safe with -jN. The gazillion smallish ports could come later when maintainers have some time to follow up, but they are not really all that critical. Memory may fail me, but wasn't there a GSoC project to parallelize the ports infrastructure? Or was that about building many different ports simultaneously instead of one port on multiple cores? -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/