From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 21 14:34:08 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1A05106566B for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:34:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org) Received: from syn.atarininja.org (syn.csh.rit.edu [129.21.50.215]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96F78FC12 for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:34:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by syn.atarininja.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id D31665C18; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:34:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:34:07 -0500 From: Wesley Shields To: Michal Varga Message-ID: <20100121143407.GA2586@atarininja.org> References: <3f1fd1ea1001200529h5a0e41b9kda9fc62410c3daa@mail.gmail.com> <3f1fd1ea1001200639p1faa623tc9cb01da75c0781@mail.gmail.com> <3f1fd1ea1001200729j6ff63560n8906dbeb65a9e2e4@mail.gmail.com> <4B574E99.5070309@acm.poly.edu> <3f1fd1ea1001201103m3c5225c9tbe8cec0f7e6b8562@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3f1fd1ea1001201103m3c5225c9tbe8cec0f7e6b8562@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: Boris Kochergin , Helmut Schneider , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to upgrade perl 5.8 to 5.10? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:34:09 -0000 On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 08:03:32PM +0100, Michal Varga wrote: > >>> Well, it's a dedicated blade after all :) And those 8 cores seem > >>> pretty nasty, I'm envious. > >>> > >> > >> Well, afaik I even cannot use more than one CPU when building ports. > >> There were plans/rumors that this would change. Does anyone know more > >> about it? > >> > Sure you can, as Boris (below) linked, this happened long time ago, especially: > > "You don't need to do anything to enable the new feature. Whitelisted > ports will automatically make use of all processors available in your > computer." > > Most large ports I have seen (and use) luckily take advantage of all > available processors during build (which completely sucks for desktop > systems, but then, you normally shouldn't do that on a station where > you try to work, so I'm fine with that). There's no way you'd be able > to build 450 ports in 45 minutes if you were using only one CPU/core. > > > > It has happened: > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2009-March/053736.html > > > > I believe *dependencies* of a port will be compiled using one process (and > > thus CPU) at a time, however. > > > Interesting, are you sure this really happens? At least I understand > you mean that - let's say - when i choose to compile, i.e. www/webkit > directly, it will use all available processors (which it does, all the > time), but when I try to compile, say, www/epiphany, which pulls > www/webkit as a dependency, it will get built without MAKE_JOBS_SAFE, > locked to a single processor? I can test in a short while if that's > really the way, just asking, if I got you right.. No. Only one port is built at a time but if that port is MAKE_JOBS_SAFE it will build in parallel. -- WXS