Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:43:54 +0200 From: David =?iso-8859-2?B?TmXoYXMgKFlldGkp?= <yeti@physics.muni.cz> To: ports@freebsd.org, Pav Lucistnik <pav@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: parallel builds revisited Message-ID: <20070413154354.GP27736@potato.chello.upc.cz> In-Reply-To: <1176477047.66557.17.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> References: <200704100452.40574.mail@maxlor.com> <1176227087.27233.8.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20070413150619.GA15433@straylight.m.ringlet.net> <1176477047.66557.17.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 05:10:47PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > Peter Pentchev píše v pá 13. 04. 2007 v 18:06 +0300: > > > > > > I was thinking about having it embedded in every port's Makefile > > > directly, instead. Something like > > > > > > USE_MAKE_JOBS= 2 > > > > IMHO, hardcoding the number of jobs in the port's Makefile would not > > be the best approach. I think a port should only flag whether it > > supports parallel building at all or not - and leave the number of jobs > > to either the ports framework or the administrator's choice. > > That was just an example. You can do > > USE_MAKE_JOBS= yes > > for autoscaling perfectly well. For details, see the patch I linked. The patch gives no reason for such hardcoding, it just implements it. How many ports exist that can fail with N+1 jobs yet cannot break with N jobs (for N > 1)? Yeti -- http://gwyddion.net/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070413154354.GP27736>