Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:11:37 +0100 (CET) From: Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org> To: Alexander@Leidinger.net Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2] Message-ID: <20041112171024.P42945@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> In-Reply-To: <1100274897.4194dcd1d67d6@netchild.homeip.net> References: <6857.1100271323@critter.freebsd.dk> <20041112160137.X42945@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> <1100274897.4194dcd1d67d6@netchild.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 Alexander@Leidinger.net wrote: > Zitat von Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org>: > >> PK>>If yes: we have some ports which aren't -j safe, so this would violate >> PK>>POLA. >> PK> >> PK>That is what "make -B" is for. >> >> Or .NOTPARALLEL > > I'm not talking about /usr/ports/category/port/Makefile, I'm talking about > /usr/ports/category/port/work/tarball_dir/**/Makefile. We don't have > control about those Makefiles. > > As much as I like a flag in the Makefile of a port which indicates > that a port can't be build with -j, we don't have this and the last time > this topic was discussed there was a strong objection to something like > this. > > So this change may break procedures which worked so far. How? If you specify -j on the port's make the -j gets passed down to all sub-makes via MAKEFLAGS and they use it. The difference is just that the overall number of jobs started is now limited by the original -j. harti
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041112171024.P42945>