Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 22:21:57 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Andrew McNaughton <andrew@scoop.co.nz> Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org, Olaf Klein <ok@monkeytower.net>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: smp and portupgrade Message-ID: <20060403022157.GA56932@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20060402204922.G18985@a2.scoop.co.nz> References: <009301c65418$cc029f30$65fd24c0@Eric> <64659004-E643-4044-AAED-076E0CC91977@foolishgames.com> <01a901c65493$77ad2740$65fd24c0@Eric> <442DC9B6.2090200@paradise.net.nz> <442EAA0A.8030704@he.iki.fi> <442EB37A.4080909@monkeytower.net> <20060401172122.GA9071@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060402204922.G18985@a2.scoop.co.nz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--J/dobhs11T7y2rNN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 08:57:30PM +1200, Andrew McNaughton wrote: > It would be nice if the ports system itself were multi-thread clean.=20 > Presumably we'd want a flag in each appropriate port's makefile which=20 > enabled a multi-threaded build where this is known to work. >=20 > Equally, it would be nice if portupgrade were able to work on separate=20 > ports in parallel where dependency structures allow for it. >=20 > Are there any fundamental reasons why such things couldn't work? No..just a lot of work needed to make it happen. Kris --J/dobhs11T7y2rNN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEMIbFWry0BWjoQKURAvjVAJwP0rTEH+I00wNS51Qp6hSC//IeswCfc9OZ XWj1nLTZGXZM/mUcpgmVk2U= =lesJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --J/dobhs11T7y2rNN--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060403022157.GA56932>