From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 14 05:12:29 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E8D16A404 for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 05:12:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A7BCB13C44C for ; Sat, 14 Apr 2007 05:12:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2007 05:12:27 -0000 Received: from nat-wh-1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (EHLO [192.168.1.12]) [129.13.72.169] by mail.gmx.net (mp028) with SMTP; 14 Apr 2007 07:12:27 +0200 X-Authenticated: #5465401 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+6fRsYFkq6uRa1LLYRiwhu4sOMEPvDpy92X1FbSK MiKiqmH3LFfSjC Message-ID: <462062B5.5050007@gmx.de> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 07:12:21 +0200 From: "[LoN]Kamikaze" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070314) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Kennaway References: <200704100452.40574.mail@maxlor.com> <1176391950.1820.3.camel@rnoland-ibm.acs.internap.com> <461E5F39.1030603@gmx.de> <200704122056.51123.mail@maxlor.com> <461E8919.1080702@gmx.de> <20070414000031.GA90090@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20070414000031.GA90090@xor.obsecurity.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: Benjamin Lutz , ports@freebsd.org, Robert Noland , pav@freebsd.org Subject: Re: parallel builds revisited 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: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 05:12:29 -0000 Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:31:37PM +0200, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote: > >>> Btw, do you think it's possible that a port can only be built with, n >>> parallel make jobs, but will fail with n+1? >> No. I do not think this can be the case. > > It certainly is the case. If a makefile has incorrectly specified > dependencies then it may build by accident for certain values of n. > There are also lots of ports with race conditions which means they may > sometimes build but not always. I am aware of the theoretical existence of such problems, but has that ever actually happened? In my experience the port fails whenever something is wrong. I've never had a case where a port that didn't work because of 'make -j' worked when I tried again or with a different number of jobs.