Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 23 May 2009 13:51:33 +0300
From:      Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Maho NAKATA <chat95@mac.com>
Cc:        pgollucci@p6m7g8.com, pav@FreeBSD.org, naylor.b.david@gmail.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
Message-ID:  <20090523135133.71a92669@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090523.182426.193741786.chat95@mac.com>
References:  <20090522.195350.193746535.chat95@mac.com> <20090522164138.236cb114@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <200905231101.59467.naylor.b.david@gmail.com> <20090523.182426.193741786.chat95@mac.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/BS.66kOxQ4I9KX8OCANu19K
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, 23 May 2009 18:24:26 +0900 (JST)
Maho NAKATA <chat95@mac.com> wrote:

> Hi David
>=20
> Many many thanks for your patch. I'll test it very soon.
>=20
> Just one comment
> > I believe openoffice-2* can me marked as SAFE while openoffice-3*
> > should not be marked at all (since it sometimes works..., very well
> > for me :-).
> you can mark as SAFE for all of our ports.=20

For testing, right?

> If it's broken, its OOo issue.

Obviously.

> We should identify if dependencies are missing. -devel ports can be
> unsafe but 3, 3-RC 2, 2-RC must be safe.
>=20
> Please wait a few days to say ok.

I'll give them a try during this weekend.

> From: David Naylor <naylor.b.david@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
> Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 11:01:56 +0200

 [ .. ]

> > Please see attached for the patch.  The changes to bsd.port.mk:
> > - MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER always defined
> > - MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER forced to 1 if UNSAFE of DISABLE

AFAIR there are ports that compile OK w/o MAKE_JOBS_SAFE but fail with
MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER=3D1

> > - MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER defaults (but user defined) to number of cores

This part looks OK, I wonder if there's any reason t ain't like this
now; Pav?
-.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER)
+MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER?=3D	`${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
 _MAKE_JOBS=3D		-j${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER}
-.else
-_MAKE_JOBS=3D		-j`${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
-.endif

I believe pav@ didn't put the ' && !defined(MAKE_JOBS_SAFE)' part
intentionally until we get to test all our ports.
-.if defined(FORCE_MAKE_JOBS)
+.if defined(FORCE_MAKE_JOBS) && !defined(MAKE_JOBS_SAFE)
 BUILD_FAIL_MESSAGE+=3D	"You have chosen to use multiple make jobs (paralle=
lization) for all ports.  This port was not tested for this setting.  Pleas=
e remove FORCE_MAKE_JOBS and retry the build before reporting the failure t=
o the maintainer."

> > I've then used MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER to set MAXPROCESSES, MAXMODULES and
> > NUMOFPROCESSES for openoffice-* (not including 1.*).
> >
> > I believe openoffice-2* can me marked as SAFE while openoffice-3*
> > should not be marked at all (since it sometimes works..., very well
> > for me :-).
> >
> > This patch just makes openoffice-* behave like other ports in
> > regards to parallel builds and the usual MAKE_JOBS variables now
> > works as expected.

Nice, thanks.

--=20
IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
  "Intellectual Property" is   nowhere near as valuable   as "Intellect"
FreeBSD committer -> itetcu@FreeBSD.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B

--Sig_/BS.66kOxQ4I9KX8OCANu19K
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkoX1TUACgkQJ7GIuiH/oeW2FgCdFScg3lBmjYt1fNiGJAYR6pud
XyoAn3QyeS/xxYPJOEgAcZrmGJjEovuy
=FblI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Sig_/BS.66kOxQ4I9KX8OCANu19K--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090523135133.71a92669>