David Naylor <[email protected]> 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
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
