Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:31:43 -0500 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, marino@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r422981 - in head/dns: bind9-devel bind910 bind911 bind99 Message-ID: <42616d3a-c0b9-4470-57e4-c3b09e6a0ef1@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <611d5e17-7fe2-8a4e-ef21-1accab75c438@FreeBSD.org> References: <201609301244.u8UCiSSh043206@repo.freebsd.org> <d670864a-d31d-91a3-33ec-e3a58d30605d@marino.st> <be8e7cfd-3ee3-1629-d54a-6e0d00dd1ca8@FreeBSD.org> <383dbd77-15a0-ea2b-e909-e24d849e80f7@marino.st> <bfc32583-b0bb-0575-316e-8cccbb5c41e7@FreeBSD.org> <6a63b844-f762-c885-0dfd-21ff327abce8@marino.st> <c56a9708-4d00-82ab-cfe8-522e9981a57f@FreeBSD.org> <f1653adc-8420-679b-328b-94c61f0d05cc@marino.st> <611d5e17-7fe2-8a4e-ef21-1accab75c438@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/4/2016 09:27, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > Le 04/10/2016 à 16:22, John Marino a écrit : >> On 10/4/2016 09:18, Mathieu Arnold wrote: >>> Le 04/10/2016 à 16:16, John Marino a écrit : >>>> On 10/4/2016 09:13, Mathieu Arnold wrote: >>>>> Le 04/10/2016 à 16:04, John Marino a écrit : >>>>>> We build under a very heavy load which flushes out marginally unsafe >>>>>> ports. >>>>> >>>>> Ok, so make(1) from dragonfly has the same bug make(1) from FreeBSD 9 >>>>> has, feel free to fix it in dragonfly's port tree. >>>> >>>> master has bmake 20160818 on it (for last 5 weeks) >>>> Release 4.6 has bmake 20141111. >>>> Do you know if make bug only applies to master? >>> >>> I have no idea. I was told the problem was with make(1) on FreeBSD 9, >>> which seemed to be right, as it does not fail at all on FreeBSD 10/11 >>> with -j 2-10. >> >> The -j number is not the only factor here. I've seen ports pass under >> very high -j numbers but start failing when the server gets loaded. >> >> DragonFly has the lastest bmake, modern binutils, modern gcc and it >> doesn't have fmake (what freebsd 9 uses). >> >> Why is it so critical to classify bind910 as jobs safe when there >> clearly is a question about it? Let's not immediately assume DF is at >> fault here. As I mentioned before, it could easily be the build tests >> you're doing aren't sufficient to flush this out. It *was* marked >> UNSAFE before, obviously with good reason. (albeit undocumented) > > It works just fine on all supported FreeBSD versions as it is, like I > said, feel free to change it in dragonfly's ports tree. Correction: In your opinion despite the presence of evidence to the contrary, it "works" fine. Thank you for your time and consideration. John --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42616d3a-c0b9-4470-57e4-c3b09e6a0ef1>