Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:32:30 -0400 From: Robert Noland <rnoland@2hip.net> To: Benjamin Lutz <mail@maxlor.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, pav@freebsd.org Subject: Re: parallel builds revisited Message-ID: <1176391950.1820.3.camel@rnoland-ibm.acs.internap.com> In-Reply-To: <200704120543.53063.mail@maxlor.com> References: <200704100452.40574.mail@maxlor.com> <1176227087.27233.8.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <200704120543.53063.mail@maxlor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 05:43 +0200, Benjamin Lutz wrote: > Hello Pav, > > On Tuesday 10 April 2007 19:44, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > > Benjamin Lutz píše v út 10. 04. 2007 v 04:52 +0200: > > > Some time ago, after buying a Core 2 Duo system, I've become > > > interested in doing something about the inherent > > > single-threadedness of the ports. Even though I have a dualcore > > > machine, ports builds only ever use one core. I started thinking > > > about various approaches to introduce parallelism to ports builds > > > and wrote down my thoughts here: > > > http://marc.info/?l=freebsd-ports&m=116124997126657&w=2 > > > > I have same thoughts, and I wrote about it on Project Ideas page. > > That text materialized into a Summer of Code proposal, which is most > > probably going to get funded. So stay tuned. However, the proposal > > concentrates mainly on allowing several ports to build in parallel. Have any of you looked at sysutils/bsdadminscripts, it's buildflags options allow for parallel builds as well as ccache / distcc use. I have a reasonable list of ports that must have some or all of these options disabled as well. robert. > Is there any detailed information available on what's planned here that > isn't in your description on SoC page? > > > Yes, a whitelist approach looks best. > > > > > 3) Save this to /usr/local/etc/parallel_builds.conf: > > > http://www.maxlor.com/temp/parallel_builds.conf . > > > This is a list of ports as stored in PKGORIGIN, or as > > > pkg_info -o reports them. > > > > I was thinking about having it embedded in every port's Makefile > > directly, instead. Something like > > > > USE_MAKE_JOBS= 2 > > Yes, that's what I had in mind as a final goal too. Having a single file > whitelist is useful though, since you don't have to patch hundreds of > makefiles while the whole thing is being tested and developed. > > > I have great interest in this development. This is a highly desirable > > feature to have. > > Me too. Could you keep me in the loop on how the SoC project progresses? > Seeing how that's concentrating on inter-port-parallelism, I think I'll > continue to work on intra-port-parallelism for a bit. > > Cheers > Benjamin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1176391950.1820.3.camel>