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?


Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to