Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:41:05 -0900 From: Mel <fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: josh.carroll@gmail.com, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, cpghost <cpghost@cordula.ws> Subject: Re: make -jN build with portmaster Message-ID: <200901252241.05483.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> In-Reply-To: <497D4EA6.1020100@FreeBSD.org> References: <20090125214457.GA4568@phenom.cordula.ws> <8cb6106e0901251422q1412ed38gd14f7591d4dfcabd@mail.gmail.com> <497D4EA6.1020100@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
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.
--
Mel
Problem with today's modular software: they start with the modules
and never get to the software part.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200901252241.05483.fbsd.questions>