From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 12 19:03:06 2008 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 D9A3B106566B for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:03:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06+T6=44283e9a@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from mxout-04.mxes.net (mxout-04.mxes.net [216.86.168.179]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6DEC8FC14 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:03:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd06+T6=44283e9a@mlists.homeunix.com) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com. (unknown [87.81.140.128]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 413DBD0C2C for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:03:02 +0000 From: RW To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20080312190302.5bb86081@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <200803121831.43296.mail@maxlor.com> References: <200803121311.51383.mail@maxlor.com> <20080312154725.705e141c@gumby.homeunix.com.> <200803121831.43296.mail@maxlor.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.3.1 (GTK+ 2.12.8; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: ports/113132 (make -j patch) 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: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:03:06 -0000 On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:31:36 +0100 Benjamin Lutz wrote: > On Wednesday 12 March 2008 16:47:25 RW wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:11:51 +0100 > > Benjamin Lutz wrote: > > > This patch has been sitting in GNATS for a couple of months now: > > > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/113132 > > > > > > I've received a few mails from people reporting success, and none > > > reporting that bad things have happened. Is it possible to get > > > this committed? > > > > I'm not keen on the way MAKE_JOBS_WHITELIST is implemented as a > > list. It seems to be out of step with the way similar problems are > > handled elsewhere. I would have expected a simple flag that can be > > set per port using portsconf, pkgtools.conf, etc. > > portconf and pkgtools.conf are files that are used by tools external > to the base ports system (portmaster and portupgrade). The ports > makefiles do not read them. . Portconf is a simple script that's executed from /etc/make.conf, so it gets picked-up by everything. > The traditional place to put port > configuration info is /etc/make.conf Yes, conditional definition in make.conf was the "etc" > Since using the whitelist is not intended to be an officially > supported feature, but only exists to make life a bit easier for > people who are debugging the ports or willing to experiment, I expect > that on 99% of FreeBSD systems, the whitelist will not be specified > at all. But it's actually easier to do it consistently with the existing conventions, than the way you have it > I therefore see no reason to increase the complexity of the > whitelist parsing code by introducing non-make-compatible syntax. It eliminates the whitelist altogether. A FORCE_MAKE_JOBS flag would simply be ORed with the ALLOW_MAKE_JOBS flag. The also allows users to define their own logic in make.conf, for example to force parallel building for all ports that aren't on a user-defined blacklist.