On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:41:05PM -0900, Mel wrote: > On Sunday 25 January 2009 20:48:22 Doug Barton wrote: > > Josh Carroll wrote: > > > What I do is the following via make.conf, > > > > I think this is a good solution. Given that incredible foot-shooting > > power of the -j stuff I am not inclined to add something like this to > > portmaster, not even as an "advanced" option.
Yes, I understand the problem with that. The make.conf solution is good enough for now. ;) > Given the fact that the build target is presumably -j safe (as far as the > ports system is concerned), it would be nice to have a BUILD_JOBS in > Mk/bsd.port.mk similar to INDEX_JOBS that is already there. Port maintainers > then can also set WITHOUT_PARALLEL (or USE_PARALLEL=NO etc) for ports that > break by themselves (f.e. www/lynx, editors/vim). > portmaster should then have no problem setting BUILD_JOBS on request. That would be absolutely perfect! At least, big ports (www/firefox3 etc...) that take a long time to compile could use USE_PARALLEL=YES right now (or the solution with make.conf) if they are safe with -jN. The gazillion smallish ports could come later when maintainers have some time to follow up, but they are not really all that critical. Memory may fail me, but wasn't there a GSoC project to parallelize the ports infrastructure? Or was that about building many different ports simultaneously instead of one port on multiple cores? -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/ _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"