From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 17 06:21:50 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 1C34316A421; Wed, 17 May 2006 06:21:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vd@datamax.bg) Received: from jengal.datamax.bg (jengal.datamax.bg [82.103.104.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9209A43D4C; Wed, 17 May 2006 06:21:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vd@datamax.bg) Received: from qlovarnika.bg.datamax (qlovarnika.bg.datamax [192.168.10.2]) by jengal.datamax.bg (Postfix) with SMTP id D7BFAB859; Wed, 17 May 2006 09:21:47 +0300 (EEST) Received: (nullmailer pid 42387 invoked by uid 1002); Wed, 17 May 2006 06:21:47 -0000 Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 09:21:47 +0300 From: Vasil Dimov To: Edwin Groothuis Message-ID: <20060517062147.GA42089@qlovarnika.bg.datamax> References: <200605171353.37745.paul.koch@statseeker.com> <20060517045403.GI1113@k7.mavetju> <200605171508.07228.paul.koch@statseeker.com> <20060517060026.GA40653@qlovarnika.bg.datamax> <20060517061302.GR1116@k7.mavetju> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060517061302.GR1116@k7.mavetju> X-OS: FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Paul Koch Subject: Re: Is it safe to compile multiple ports at the same time ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: vd@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 06:21:50 -0000 --3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 04:13:02PM +1000, Edwin Groothuis wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 09:00:26AM +0300, Vasil Dimov wrote: > > Not really, locking will just prevent breakages. Let me illustrate my > > thought with an example: > >=20 > > port A depends on X > > port B depends on X > >=20 > > You start building A which results in building X via exclusive lock on = X. > > During the build of X you decide to build B which results in building X > > (X is not yet installed) but you block trying to acquire the exclusive > > lock on X so you wait _idling_ until building of X is done. Furthermore > > what do you suggest to do when the lock is released? >=20 > You have to obtain a lock on the X's Makefile before you are doing > to check if you have this port installed. >=20 > For example, a dependcy on pkg-config in the directory devel/pkgconfig: >=20 > - obtain lock on devel/pkgconfig/Makefile What do you do if that is already locked? > - check if pkg-config exists, and if not, build and install it. > - release lock on devel/pkgconfig/Makefile >=20 >=20 > > Ofcourse if B depends also on Y it can fallback to building Y if it > > cannot gain exclusive lock on X. >=20 > Building one port is a serial process, building multiple ports can > be a parallel process. >=20 Agreed. --=20 Vasil Dimov gro.DSBeerF@dv Testing can show the presence of bugs, but not their absence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra --3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFEasD7Fw6SP/bBpCARAjYjAJ98xR8TjxZWvJ+geH3X7/HJka9WsQCgwV7+ RvdPij6NIFlXWPtk+wA+t4s= =D/p/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3MwIy2ne0vdjdPXF--