Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 15:44:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@misha.privatelabs.com> To: eric@FreeBSD.org Cc: kris@obsecurity.org, knu@iDaemons.org, kris@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: port policies Message-ID: <200105071944.f47Ji5C35804@misha.privatelabs.com> In-Reply-To: <20010504135013.A72262@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4 May, Eric Melville wrote: >> Hmm..don't know of any ports which do this actually. It's likely to be >> safer (than using high -O values) though, because the author >> presumably tested the build actually works with that value, and -j is >> more of a deterministic thing (except for race conditions in the >> build) than -O is. > > These days, make -j (>1) may well be safer than gcc -O(>1), but it still > causes headaches for people with slower hardware and less memory. Yes, the > list of ports that do this is very small, but it's still fairly lame. I do > like proposed idea of a tunable -j number for usage across the tree. I'd love to see the example pioneered by the qt port to become part of the bsd.port.mk. And, the default number of jobs should be something like double the number of processors. available. The port should then need to define: PARALLEL_SAFE= yes I'd reject the "slower hardware" part of the argument, leaving only the "less memory" part :) The ports (I try to add -j in my ports wherever possible) build faster for more users that way, and _still build_ on low memory machines. -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105071944.f47Ji5C35804>