Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:35:56 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2] Message-ID: <1100525756.4198b0bc994e4@netchild.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20041115140821.A51863@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> References: <6857.1100271323@critter.freebsd.dk> <20041112160137.X42945@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <1100274897.4194dcd1d67d6@netchild.homeip.net> <20041112171024.P42945@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <20041113092215.7a40f133@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <20041115091059.L51863@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <1100518191.4198932fc1dd4@netchild.homeip.net> <20041115140821.A51863@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Zitat von Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org>:
> AL>So if portupgrade inherits MAKEFLAGS somehow, phk's patch shouldn't
> AL>cause unexpected harm in this szenario, if portupgrade doesn't inherit
> AL>MAKEFLAGS, his patch violates POLA in this case.
>
> At least portinstall doesn't touch MAKEFLAGS: insert something like
> FOO!=echo -- ${MAKEFLAGS} >/tmp/A
> into a port's makefile and call portinstall for than port:
>
> MAKEFLAGS=-j2 portinstall ...
I've tested it now in the scenario I had described in my previous mail.
Yes, portupgrade inherits MAKEFLAGS.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
http://www.Leidinger.net/ Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org/ netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1100525756.4198b0bc994e4>