Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 20:00:31 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: "[LoN]Kamikaze" <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de> Cc: Benjamin Lutz <mail@maxlor.com>, ports@freebsd.org, Robert Noland <rnoland@2hip.net>, pav@freebsd.org Subject: Re: parallel builds revisited Message-ID: <20070414000031.GA90090@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <461E8919.1080702@gmx.de> References: <200704100452.40574.mail@maxlor.com> <1176391950.1820.3.camel@rnoland-ibm.acs.internap.com> <461E5F39.1030603@gmx.de> <200704122056.51123.mail@maxlor.com> <461E8919.1080702@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:31:37PM +0200, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote: > > Btw, do you think it's possible that a port can only be built with, n= =20 > > parallel make jobs, but will fail with n+1? >=20 > No. I do not think this can be the case. It certainly is the case. If a makefile has incorrectly specified dependencies then it may build by accident for certain values of n. There are also lots of ports with race conditions which means they may sometimes build but not always. For both of these reasons, once the infrastructure support is in place, I don't want to see an indiscriminate rush to mark ports as "make -j safe", because it will cause more problems than it solves. It should only be done after careful testing by a port's maintainer who promises to investigate and fix the race conditions that may be exposed. Kris --MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGIBmfWry0BWjoQKURAoF2AKChz3FzH4qqfK1wobdiq9s4Zw1N1ACfUijg dvf8/hlneDvlM6kwZydgGRs= =wUXL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070414000031.GA90090>