Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:49:27 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r187132 - head/usr.bin/make Message-ID: <20090130174927.GB9615@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20090130175627.GA20856@hades.panopticon> References: <200901130653.n0D6rrNX092719@svn.freebsd.org> <20090130015518.GA20404@hades.panopticon> <20090130113402.GB92386@dragon.NUXI.org> <20090130175627.GA20856@hades.panopticon>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 05:56:27PM +0000, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: > * David O'Brien (obrien@freebsd.org) wrote: > > I'm sorry I disagree. You're complaining about something that is > > a feature of FreeBSD 1.x, 2.0 - 3.0, 4.4BSD, all NetBSD versions, > > all OpenBSD versions, Sprite, and the Open Group's Open Development > > Environment make. > > Nice. Well I've been using FreeBSD since 4.7, and I don't believe I've > seen this once. Please note, FreeBSD 4.7 falls outside the FreeBSD versions I listed. > Not `BSD user', but just `user'. We can't take somethink that was > used back in FreBSD 3.0 as common and expected thing. By least > astonishment I mean: > > - I do not expect to see difference between plain make and parallel > make. Why? It is operating differently. Do you expect to see any difference in behavior between a UP or SMP kernel? > - I do not expect extra messages Why doesn't all the extra output of: ===> gnu/usr.bin/gperf (obj,depend,all,install) ===> gnu/usr.bin/gperf/doc (obj) ===> gnu/usr.bin/gperf/doc (depend) ===> gnu/usr.bin/gperf/doc (all) bother you? I expect the "make obj" or "make depend" step to just happen nicely and quietly. But instead its there. > - I do not expect behaviour change compared to previous version Eh? Software has 100,000's of behavior changes between versions. > Remember, make is not only used in FreeBSD kernel, but also in ports > (I know -j is not widely used there, but I believe it will someday) I don't believe it will happen - I've had patches to add -j to ports build for a long time, there has been very minimal interest in them. The answer there has aways to be build multiple ports at the same time. And so many ports aren't tested for '-j' builds it is naive to think the vast majority of ports would build with '-j'. (my patch was an opt-in for large things like gcc) -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090130174927.GB9615>