On Sep 21, 2009, at 01:54, Anders F Björklund wrote:
I think it only runs one at a time anyway, just that the deps fail.
Or something like that, it's not like I actually digged into it...
Just noticed that "make" works and "make -j1" does not.
On base? On a particular port?
Besides,
that "-j1" argument seemed rather silly to me in the first place ?
Sure. There's just no special case code in there to handle when
jobs=1. But like I said it could be easily added. How about this patch?
Index: portbuild.tcl
===================================================================
--- portbuild.tcl (revision 57981)
+++ portbuild.tcl (working copy)
@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@
return ""
}
- if {![exists build.jobs] || !([string match "*make*" [option
build.cmd]] || [string match "*scons*" [option build.cmd]])} {
+ if {![exists build.jobs] || 1 == [option build.jobs] || !([string
match "*make*" [option build.cmd]] || [string match "*scons*" [option
build.cmd]])} {
return ""
}
return " -j[option build.jobs]"
But MacPorts is documented as using GNU make by default. That's
build.type. MacPorts should be using GNU make by default on all
platforms unless the port sets build.type to bsd. Is this not the
case?
If nothing is set for build.type, it uses system make:
if {![exists build.type]} {
return [findBinary make $portutil::autoconf::make_path]
}
Ok. That's not what our documentation says happens. :)
http://guide.macports.org/#reference.phases.build
I think we should change the code to match the documentation, which
means "build.type gnu" should be the default.
So it was using -j1 for bsdmake as well ? Or actually it was using
"fail" (2) for -j until the default value was changed from 0 to 1.
So "whatever the system provides" is the default value, then it
can be explicitly set to GNU for the 0.01% of the ports that care.
I'd rather change base to match the documentation in this case, since
what's documented sounds like more predictable behavior.
This makes it less portable, if it requires "Mac OS X" and "Xcode"
instead of explicit dependencies like Tcl or GCC... That's all.
Yeah. I guess all we can do is fix things when problems are reported.
No, what you *could* do instead is saying "So what ? We don't care !"
We could do that as well.
and just have MacPorts require Mac OS X (10.5+ ?) and be done with it.
We currently work on Mac OS X 10.4 and up and should not unnecessarily
exclude 10.4 at this point.
I don't think that MacPorts could ever be a portable build system,
I don't know if it could be. But it seems to me we have enough on our
hands trying to make a good Mac build system without also trying to
accommodate other OSes.
I was just making sure that it runs on Darwin OS and now FreeBSD...
Partly because I think Open Source is important, and partly because
I don't have a new Mac to join in on the Snow Leopard crash fest...
Thanks! I certainly appreciate your efforts. They might well uncover
other issues which are relevant on Mac OS X as well.
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
