Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:36:30 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Max Brazhnikov <makc@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/archivers/deb2targz Makefile ports/archivers/ecm Makefile ports/archivers/gzrecover Makefile ports/archivers/mar Makefile ports/archivers/ppmd Makefile ports/archivers/tardy Makefile ports/archivers/unlzx Makefile ports/archivers/unmass ... Message-ID: <20090327143630.GA13575@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200903271643.21950.makc@freebsd.org> References: <200903270953.n2R9racu052536@repoman.freebsd.org> <200903271643.21950.makc@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 04:43:21PM +0300, Max Brazhnikov wrote: > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:53:36 +0000 (UTC), Emanuel Haupt wrote: > > Mark MAKE_JOBS_SAFE > > > > Revision Changes Path > > 1.6 +1 -0 ports/archivers/deb2targz/Makefile > > Is there reason for marking ports, which do not require build target at all? I'm actually wondering why are we are not marking ~400 "not safe" ports instead of marking ~20k-400 others as "safe". I realize that the build cluster cannot catch every implication of parallel builds, but that huge amount of gratuitous commits worries me. One of the really cool things about our port infrastructure is ability to hide lots of the build process under simple declarative rules, letting the porter specify "what" they want instead of exactly "how". To me, MAKE_JOBS_SAFE knob does not fit nicely in this paradigm. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090327143630.GA13575>