On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:45:46 +0100 Benjamin Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 March 2008 14:01:57 Florent Thoumie wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This patch has been sitting in GNATS for a couple of months now: > > > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/113132 > > > > > > I've received a few mails from people reporting success, and none > > > reporting that bad things have happened. Is it possible to get this > > > committed? > > > > It needs to go through an experimental build first. > > > > IMHO, this is an ugly hack. Ultimately, we're talking about marking > > almost 20k ports as parallel-safe. > > Because in requires modifications of individual port Makefiles? Or is there > something else in it that you don't like? > snip... > Also, the amount of work required to gete an advantage from this change is > actually not as high as you think. Of the 20k ports we have, only the big > ones (e.g., kde*) gain a substantial benefit from -j building. Small ports > that only compile for a few seconds anyway can be left as they are now. You may do better by or together with ports+, http://uyota.asablo.jp/blog/cat/portsplus/ . It allows to fetch and build independent ports at parallel. So, not only big ones but also small ones make benefit. It does not build ports in parallel. So, it won't break anything as they are now. Cheers, Hiro _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
