David Naylor <naylor.b.da...@gmail.com> writes: > On Friday 25 June 2010 18:08:22 David Naylor wrote: >> Hi, >> >> java/openjdk6 breaks with FORCE_MAKE_JOBS (it implements its own think). >> The attached patch fixes openjdk6, marks it as MAKE_JOBS_SAFE and makes it >> respect MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER. >> >> Regards, >> >> David >> >> P.S. I'm off list > > Oops. My hack didn't work. > > With MAKE_JOBS_SAFE _MAKE_JOBS is included but that evaluated to -jN and this > is choking the Makefile. Is there an easier way to exclude _MAKE_JOBS? > Perhaps set _MAKE_JOBS conditionally in bsd.ports.mk and a port can then do > _MAKE_JOBS=""
Smth like %% Index: Mk/bsd.port.mk @@ -2292,7 +2292,7 @@ _MAKE_JOBS= # .else .if defined(MAKE_JOBS_SAFE) || defined(FORCE_MAKE_JOBS) MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER?= `${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus` -_MAKE_JOBS= -j${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER} +_MAKE_JOBS?= -j${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER} .if defined(FORCE_MAKE_JOBS) && !defined(MAKE_JOBS_SAFE) BUILD_FAIL_MESSAGE+= "You have chosen to use multiple make jobs (parallelization) for all ports. This port was not tested for this setting. Please remove FORCE_MAKE_JOBS and retry the build before reporting the failure to the maintainer." .endif %% > > The attached patch fixes the above problem without touching bsd.ports.mk. > You can as well define empty _MAKE_JOBS *after* <bsd.port.post.mk>. At least it wouldn't be as ugly as redefining do-build target. %% Index: java/openjdk6/Makefile @@ -266,3 +267,6 @@ post-install: @${CAT} ${PKGMESSAGE} .include <bsd.port.post.mk> + +# XXX: use `?=' in bsd.port.mk +_MAKE_JOBS= %% > Regards _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"