From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 12 10:07:12 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA4616A4CE; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:07:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from n33.kp.t-systems-sfr.com (n33.kp.t-systems-sfr.com [129.247.16.33]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A936C43D49; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:07:11 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from harti@freebsd.org) Received: from n81.sp.op.dlr.de (n81g.sp.op.dlr.de [129.247.163.1]) iACA6nU539156; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:06:49 +0100 Received: from zeus.nt.op.dlr.de (zeus.nt.op.dlr.de [129.247.173.3]) iACA6mI134078; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:06:48 +0100 Received: from beagle.kn.op.dlr.de (opkndnwsbsd178 [129.247.173.178]) by zeus.nt.op.dlr.de (8.11.7+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id iACA7Lu25018; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:07:21 +0100 (MET) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:06:54 +0100 (CET) From: Harti Brandt X-X-Sender: brandt@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de To: Poul-Henning Kamp In-Reply-To: <94518.1100252100@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: <20041112105437.T42945@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> References: <94518.1100252100@critter.freebsd.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Harti Brandt List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:07:12 -0000 On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: PK>In message <20041112090905.GD41844@ip.net.ua>, Ruslan Ermilov writes: PK> PK>>But you don't give an opportunity to control this on a sub-make PK>>level (that's what I ask for). PK> PK>Why would that be of any use ? If you run "make universe" the task PK>at hand is to get "make universe" to complete. You should not care PK>which partcular submake starts how many jobs when, you should only PK>care that it works as efficient as possible. A new make is not necessarily a sub-make in the sense as started by $(MAKE). A make could also be started by, for example, an awk script or whatever running from make and who's task has not directly to do with the top make's task. Something like: test: tool tool -a -v tool: portinstall -v tool I'm not sure whether automatically putting the make started by portinstall into the same group of makes as the top make is what one wants in such cases. One could, of course try to wipe out MAKE_JOBS_FIFO from portinstall's environment, but that is rather cumbersome (something like env -d would be really handy) and would require that environment variable to be documented at least. harti