Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:41:57 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: asami@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports lockfile? Message-ID: <20001220094157.C644@ringworld.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <20001219113535.Q19572@fw.wintelcom.net>; from bright@wintelcom.net on Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 11:35:35AM -0800 References: <20001219113535.Q19572@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 11:35:35AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this before, I got a lot of approval > for the idea, but I don't have the time and familiarity with the > ports mk files to do what I propose. > > Usually when doing an install I'll start building several ports in > at the same time The problem is that frequently the ports will > recurse into the same dependancy, and the two builds will clobber > each other. FWIW, yes, I verily support this idea :) > I tried to figure out some way for the ports to use the 'lockf' > utility on the port makefile in order to protect it, but I can't > seem to figure out how and where to use lockf. > > We'd need some pre-pre-pre make step to do this I imagine, anyone > want to try to do this? Is it a good idea? There seems to already be a pre-everything target, which is invoked for old port layouts and for bad utilities version; there also is a default pre-everything target, with nothing but a DO_NADA there. This would seem like a good place for acquiring the lock. G'luck, Peter -- I am the meaning of this sentence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001220094157.C644>