From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 11 19:00:31 2003 Return-Path: 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 CA3E416A4B3 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:00:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (adsl-64-169-107-253.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [64.169.107.253]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A1A43FA3 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:00:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from rot13.obsecurity.org (rot13.obsecurity.org [10.0.0.5]) by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75EEB66D6A; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:00:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rot13.obsecurity.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4EB68B72; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:00:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:00:30 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: George Hartzell Message-ID: <20031012020030.GA71366@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <16264.44449.392345.828078@rosebud.alerce.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16264.44449.392345.828078@rosebud.alerce.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: using multiple processors for ports builds and/or portupgrade(1)? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:00:31 -0000 --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 06:25:53PM -0700, George Hartzell wrote: >=20 > I have a dual processor machine sitting at a load of 1 during a > "portupgrade -f gnome2". >=20 > Are the Makefiles in the ports trees safe to use with -j 4 or -j 6 on > a dual processor machine? I'm worried about how the dependencies are > handled, etc.... >=20 > If the make is a safe thing to do, is there a standard way to > encourage portupgrade to take advantage of it? In general, I'd be surprised if a significant percentage of ports are -j safe. Kris --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/iLW+Wry0BWjoQKURAowXAJ4myWop9D67LnuXi5aE4aBGEDhG+ACg4wpn cJhxRi3a1bSxqC+c5fKSg4U= =bJFo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q--