Re: [CFT] FreeBSD python25 move to python26 as default version.
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Martin Wilke wrote: > Once the installed Python has been updated to 2.6, by using one of the > methods above, it is required to run the upgrade-site-packages target in > lang/python to assure that site-packages are made available to the new > Python > version. > > # cd /usr/ports/lang/python && make upgrade-site-packages > > This Makefile target requires ports-mgmt/portupgrade to be installed. > A lot of us are no longer using ports-mgmt/portupgrade in favor of ports-mgmt/portmaster. Please support both tools. Thanks, Kelly Hays ___ 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"
Re: make.conf no x option
Frank J. Laszlo wrote: You could also just rm the x11-* directories from the ports tree, and then set exceptions for csup/cvsup/whatever to not update them. It'll generate an error if you try to install any X11 dependent ports, but it wont install them ;) This is precisely what I do. I don't even let sysinstall extract the ports tree from CD anymore and just CVSup only the ports collections I need. Saves many inodes too! Regards, Aragon ___ 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"
Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
David Naylor píše v út 26. 05. 2009 v 18:17 +0200:
> What about the change that exposes MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER when MAKE_JOBS_SAFE or
> FORCE_MAKE_JOBS are defined (to avoid using ${_MAKE_JOBS:C/-j//}, not sure
> what the policy is of ports using *.mk internals). I think that is a
> reasonable change???
I think it's reasonable. It will need to be tested widely. Can you file
a PR with just that change, to help me track it while in testing?
Thank you.
--
Pav Lucistnik
It's time for the penguin on top of your television set to explode.
signature.asc
Description: Toto je digitálně podepsaná část zprávy
Re: make.conf no x option
>> i think this whole thing is worth a few days to settle in our heads. >> essentially, if we believe that freebsd is used extensively in >> headless server deployments, we should make that easy and smooth. > But even a headless server can run X clients with the display being on > some other (presumably non-headless) machine. That is on of the > beauties of the X Windowing System. [ thanks, but i am overly-familiar with the beauties and the some of the warts of x. ] someone installing a server may or may not want the x client version of a package as opposed to readline or curses. but, imiho, it would be good to make such decisions centralized, somewhat strong, and pretty clear. > The only part that would make no sense to install on a headless > machine is the X server itself and the support for it and the toys it occasionally seems to drag in. i really do not want the x client versions of emacs, cvsup, ... actually, i can not think of any ports i run on headless machines that i want spawning windows on my glass. ymmv, of course. i think that i would like to be able to say headless install and have to ack any port which wants to drag in x. randy ___ 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"
Re: make.conf no x option
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 03:52:53AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > Something like the following would work as a safety net. > > > > --- /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.xorg.mk.orig 2009-05-26 13:42:52.0 +0100 > > +++ /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.xorg.mk 2009-05-26 13:42:58.0 +0100 > > @@ -28,6 +28,11 @@ > > # xserver - there's only one atm, I guess everything can fit into the > > port itself > > > > .if defined(XORG_CAT) > > + > > +. if defined(WITHOUT_X11) > > +IGNORE=me not want x11 > > +. endif > > + > > # Default variables, common to all new modular xorg ports. > > .if !defined(USE_TGZ) > > USE_BZIP2= yes > > looks useful. Perhaps, but it would change the meaning of 'WITHOUT_X11=yes' quite a bit, so I do not think it would be suitable to commit to the ports tree as-is (and I hope nobody had planned on doing that.) (At the moment 'WITHOUT_X11=yes' means that those ports which have optional support for X11 should be built without it. With the patch above it would change to mean that the ports system will refuse to build *any* port which depends on X11.) > > i think this whole thing is worth a few days to settle in our heads. > essentially, if we believe that freebsd is used extensively in headless > server deployments, we should make that easy and smooth. But even a headless server can run X clients with the display being on some other (presumably non-headless) machine. That is on of the beauties of the X Windowing System. The only part that would make no sense to install on a headless machine is the X server itself, which almost no ports depend on anyway (and those which do are mainly other components of X.) -- Erik Trulsson ertr1...@student.uu.se ___ 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"
Re: make.conf no x option
> Something like the following would work as a safety net. > > --- /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.xorg.mk.orig2009-05-26 13:42:52.0 +0100 > +++ /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.xorg.mk 2009-05-26 13:42:58.0 +0100 > @@ -28,6 +28,11 @@ > # xserver - there's only one atm, I guess everything can fit into the > port itself > > .if defined(XORG_CAT) > + > +. if defined(WITHOUT_X11) > +IGNORE= me not want x11 > +. endif > + > # Default variables, common to all new modular xorg ports. > .if !defined(USE_TGZ) > USE_BZIP2= yes looks useful. i think this whole thing is worth a few days to settle in our heads. essentially, if we believe that freebsd is used extensively in headless server deployments, we should make that easy and smooth. randy ___ 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"
Re: portmaster overzealous on distfiles?
On Tue, 26 May 2009, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 26/05/2009 19:31 Andriy Gapon said the following: >> I run the following command to upgrade from audacious 1.5.* to >> 2.0.*: $ portmaster audacious\* FYI, the \* at the end of that is not necessary. If the command line argument doesn't match a specific port it is treated as a glob pattern. >> This starts to build three ports: audacious, audacious-plugins, >> audacious-skins. At the end of audacious upgrade portmaster asked >> me if I want to delete not only the older distfile of audacious >> but also about the newer one, and the one for audacious-skins. > > After the above upgrade I re-run the command again (forceful > upgrade, so to say) and, again, after upgrading audacious port > portmaster asked me if I want to delete new-and-only distfiles for > other two ports. If the various distfiles all start with audacious-* then portmaster will ask you about them. I have gone back and forth in my mind about hiding that code behind an option now that I have fairly effective mechanisms in place to handle distfile stuff without resorting to the glob matching. The reason I haven't done it yet is that cases like you describe are actually fairly rare, and easily overcome with a combination of the -D option and the --clean-distfiles option later on at your convenience. The course of action that I've basically settled on at this point is rather than actually asking you if you want to remove the glob-match distfiles to issue a suggestion to try the --clean-distfiles option at some point in the future, which seems like a happy medium to me. As soon as I get time to do it anyway. :) hope this helps, Doug ___ 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"
Re: portmaster overzealous on distfiles?
on 26/05/2009 19:31 Andriy Gapon said the following: > I run the following command to upgrade from audacious 1.5.* to 2.0.*: > $ portmaster audacious\* > This starts to build three ports: audacious, audacious-plugins, > audacious-skins. > At the end of audacious upgrade portmaster asked me if I want to delete not > only > the older distfile of audacious but also about the newer one, and the one for > audacious-skins. After the above upgrade I re-run the command again (forceful upgrade, so to say) and, again, after upgrading audacious port portmaster asked me if I want to delete new-and-only distfiles for other two ports. -- Andriy Gapon ___ 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"
portmaster overzealous on distfiles?
I run the following command to upgrade from audacious 1.5.* to 2.0.*: $ portmaster audacious\* This starts to build three ports: audacious, audacious-plugins, audacious-skins. At the end of audacious upgrade portmaster asked me if I want to delete not only the older distfile of audacious but also about the newer one, and the one for audacious-skins. -- Andriy Gapon ___ 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"
Re: sane-backends-1.0.19_1 fails to compile
Le 26/05/2009 à 18:05:17+0200, lysergius2001 a écrit > > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Albert Shih wrote: > > > > I concur. It's work for me too. > > > > Me too... but what did it do? That a plain deinstall/reinstall did not? > The more complex software I ever wrote is echo "Hello world" in bash. So I don't have the ability to answer you. But what I understand when you using portupgrade (or something like that), first the new version is build and after that the old version is deinstall and the new version is install. That's mean when you build the new version the olds libraries still here. Maybe some conflicts ? Regards. -- Albert SHIH SIO batiment 15 Observatoire de Paris Meudon 5 Place Jules Janssen 92195 Meudon Cedex Heure local/Local time: Mar 26 mai 2009 18:17:43 CEST ___ 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"
Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
On Tuesday 26 May 2009 10:48:25 Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> David Naylor píše v út 26. 05. 2009 v 08:19 +0200:
> > pav: ${_MAKE_JOBS:C/-j//} won't work with DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS (or
> > MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE) since it needs to always be a positive number, secondly
> > it still cannot be used for conditional code (since it is defined in the
> > post section, but the whole code could always be moved to the pre
> > section).
>
> I'm hesitant to modify bsd.port.mk for benefit of just four ports.
> Also, I think having MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER set to 1 when the feature is in
> fact disable, is counter-intuitive (because -j1 is very different to no
> -j at all).
I understand, I see the light. By the way it is two ports requiring the
below.
What about the change that exposes MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER when MAKE_JOBS_SAFE or
FORCE_MAKE_JOBS are defined (to avoid using ${_MAKE_JOBS:C/-j//}, not sure
what the policy is of ports using *.mk internals). I think that is a
reasonable change???
> So how about just having
>
> .if defined(DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS)
> MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER= 1
> .else
+.if !defined(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER)
> MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER!=echo `${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
+.endif
> .endif
>
> in ooo makefile?
This will work in OOo2*, the OOo3 will also need a check for DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS
since they rely on MKAE_JOBS_NUMBER always being set (just the way they do
things).
Will fix and send another patch.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: sane-backends-1.0.19_1 fails to compile
Le 25/05/2009 à 09:57:15-0700, GESBBB a écrit > > > From: Yuri > > > > See log below: > > > > mv -f .deps/libsane_canon_dr_la-canon_dr-s.Tpo > > .deps/libsane_canon_dr_la-canon_dr-s.Plo^M > > /bin/sh ../libtool --silent --tag=CC --mode=compile cc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H > > -I../include/sane -I. -I/usr/local/include -I. -I. -I../include > > -I../include > > -DLIBDIR="/usr/local/lib/sane" -DBACKEND_NAME=canon_dr > > -I/usr/local/include > > -D_REENTRANT -DPATH_SANE_CONFIG_DIR=/usr/local/etc/sane.d > > -DPATH_SANE_DATA_DIR=/usr/local/share > > -DPATH_SANE_LOCK_DIR=/usr/local/var/lock/sane -DV_MAJOR=1 > > -DV_MINOR=0 > > -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -W -Wall -MT libcanon_dr_la-canon_dr.lo -MD > > -MP > > -MF .deps/libcanon_dr_la-canon_dr.Tpo -c -o libcanon_dr_la-canon_dr.lo > > `test -f > > 'canon_dr.c' || echo './'`canon_dr.c^M > > canon_dr.c: In function 'sane_canon_dr_get_option_descriptor':^M > > canon_dr.c:1333: error: 'SANE_NAME_STANDARD' undeclared (first use in this > > function)^M > > canon_dr.c:1333: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once^M > > canon_dr.c:1333: error: for each function it appears in.)^M > > canon_dr.c:1334: error: 'SANE_TITLE_STANDARD' undeclared (first use in this > > function)^M > > canon_dr.c:1335: error: 'SANE_DESC_STANDARD' undeclared (first use in this > > function)^M > > canon_dr.c:1545: error: 'SANE_NAME_GEOMETRY' undeclared (first use in this > > function)^M > > canon_dr.c:1546: error: 'SANE_TITLE_GEOMETRY' undeclared (first use in this > > function)^M > > canon_dr.c:1547: error: 'SANE_DESC_GEOMETRY' undeclared (first use in this > > function)^M > > canon_dr.c:1632: error: 'SANE_NAME_PAGE_WIDTH' undeclared (first use in > > this > > function)^M > > canon_dr.c:1633: error: 'SANE_TITLE_PAGE_WIDTH' undeclared (first use in > > this > > function)^M > > canon_dr.c:1634: error: 'SANE_DESC_PAGE_WIDTH' undeclared (first use in > > this > > function)^M > > canon_dr.c:1659: error: 'SANE_NAME_PAGE_HEIGHT' undeclared (first use in > > this > > function)^M > > canon_dr.c:1660: error: 'SANE_TITLE_PAGE_HEIGHT' undeclared (first use in > > this > > function)^M > > canon_dr.c:1661: error: 'SANE_DESC_PAGE_HEIGHT' undeclared (first use in > > this > > function)^M > > canon_dr.c:1680: error: 'SANE_NAME_ENHANCEMENT' undeclared (first use in > > this > > function)^M > > canon_dr.c:1681: error: 'SANE_TITLE_ENHANCEMENT' undeclared (first use in > > this > > function)^M > > canon_dr.c:1682: error: 'SANE_DESC_ENHANCEMENT' undeclared (first use in > > this > > function)^M > > 1) Update your ports tree > 2) in the graphics/sane-backends directory run: > > make distclean && make deinstall && make reinstall > > That worked for me. > I concur. It's work for me too. Regards. -- Albert SHIH SIO batiment 15 Observatoire de Paris Meudon 5 Place Jules Janssen 92195 Meudon Cedex Téléphone : 01 45 07 76 26 Heure local/Local time: Mar 26 mai 2009 17:23:32 CEST ___ 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"
Re: make.conf no x option
Florent Thoumie wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Erik Trulsson wrote: On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 08:44:43PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: as so many folk build server-only, there must e a make.conf or whatever option to tell ports that you just do not want an x server or any of it's 500kg friends. but i can not seem to find it. I think you're looking for WITHOUT_X11=yes :) i have that. i still get a lot of x with some ports. i will try to keep a watch for which ones. Well, there are many ports which depend unconditionally upon X. If you install one of them (or some other port which depends on one of them) you will get X, no questions asked. WITHOUT_X11 is useful for those ports which have an optional dependency upon X, but that is all it does. There does not exist any flag which tells the ports-system to refuse to build any ports which depend on X, which seems to be what you want. Something like the following would work as a safety net. --- /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.xorg.mk.orig 2009-05-26 13:42:52.0 +0100 +++ /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.xorg.mk 2009-05-26 13:42:58.0 +0100 @@ -28,6 +28,11 @@ # xserver - there's only one atm, I guess everything can fit into the port itself .if defined(XORG_CAT) + +. if defined(WITHOUT_X11) +IGNORE=me not want x11 +. endif + # Default variables, common to all new modular xorg ports. .if !defined(USE_TGZ) USE_BZIP2= yes You could also just rm the x11-* directories from the ports tree, and then set exceptions for csup/cvsup/whatever to not update them. It'll generate an error if you try to install any X11 dependent ports, but it wont install them ;) Obviously the above fix is better, but it would need to be tested thoroughly before being committed. Regards, Frank Laszlo ___ 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"
Re: [Call For Testing] VirtualBox for FreeBSD! take 3
On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 16:00 +0200, Marian Hettwer wrote: > Hi All, > > > > > > > We rolled a new version with a fix for all users where > > has problems with kernel load and unload. Many thanks to > > Shin-ichi Okano where submitted this patch to the vbox ml. > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~miwi/vbox/virtualbox_4.tgz > > > > happy testing. > > > This version works like a charm on my box. > FreeBSD motor.mobile.local 7.2-STABLE FreeBSD 7.2-STABLE #0: Wed May 20 > 11:11:57 CEST 2009 r...@motor.mobile.rz:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC > i386 > > Thanks for all your efforts! Great to have a vmware replacement on FreeBSD > :-) > > best regards and keep up the good work! > Marian Chalk up another one, also working on; 7.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.2-RELEASE #0 i386 tested opensuse 11.1, rhel 5, and fedora 10 -- all working. Thanks a million /Craig ___ 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"
Re: make.conf no x option
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 08:44:43PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: >> >> as so many folk build server-only, there must e a make.conf or whatever >> >> option to tell ports that you just do not want an x server or any of >> >> it's 500kg friends. but i can not seem to find it. >> > I think you're looking for WITHOUT_X11=yes :) >> >> i have that. i still get a lot of x with some ports. i will try to >> keep a watch for which ones. > > > Well, there are many ports which depend unconditionally upon X. > If you install one of them (or some other port which depends on one of them) > you will get X, no questions asked. > > WITHOUT_X11 is useful for those ports which have an optional dependency upon > X, but that is all it does. > > > There does not exist any flag which tells the ports-system to refuse to > build any ports which depend on X, which seems to be what you want. Something like the following would work as a safety net. --- /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.xorg.mk.orig 2009-05-26 13:42:52.0 +0100 +++ /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.xorg.mk 2009-05-26 13:42:58.0 +0100 @@ -28,6 +28,11 @@ # xserver - there's only one atm, I guess everything can fit into the port itself .if defined(XORG_CAT) + +. if defined(WITHOUT_X11) +IGNORE=me not want x11 +. endif + # Default variables, common to all new modular xorg ports. .if !defined(USE_TGZ) USE_BZIP2= yes -- Florent Thoumie f...@freebsd.org FreeBSD Committer ___ 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"
Re: make.conf no x option
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 08:44:43PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > >> as so many folk build server-only, there must e a make.conf or whatever > >> option to tell ports that you just do not want an x server or any of > >> it's 500kg friends. but i can not seem to find it. > > I think you're looking for WITHOUT_X11=yes :) > > i have that. i still get a lot of x with some ports. i will try to > keep a watch for which ones. Well, there are many ports which depend unconditionally upon X. If you install one of them (or some other port which depends on one of them) you will get X, no questions asked. WITHOUT_X11 is useful for those ports which have an optional dependency upon X, but that is all it does. There does not exist any flag which tells the ports-system to refuse to build any ports which depend on X, which seems to be what you want. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1...@student.uu.se ___ 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"
Re: make.conf no x option
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Peter Pentchev wrote: > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 08:32:50PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: >> as so many folk build server-only, there must e a make.conf or whatever >> option to tell ports that you just do not want an x server or any of >> it's 500kg friends. but i can not seem to find it. >> >> i do cvsup-without-gui, emacs-nox11, etc. but one mistake with some >> port, and you get the whole boatload, and you can never scrape it all >> out. > > I think you're looking for WITHOUT_X11=yes :) I would add WITHOUT_GUI as well, just in case. -- Florent Thoumie f...@freebsd.org FreeBSD Committer ___ 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"
Re: make.conf no x option
>> as so many folk build server-only, there must e a make.conf or whatever >> option to tell ports that you just do not want an x server or any of >> it's 500kg friends. but i can not seem to find it. > I think you're looking for WITHOUT_X11=yes :) i have that. i still get a lot of x with some ports. i will try to keep a watch for which ones. randy ___ 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"
Re: make.conf no x option
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 08:32:50PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > as so many folk build server-only, there must e a make.conf or whatever > option to tell ports that you just do not want an x server or any of > it's 500kg friends. but i can not seem to find it. > > i do cvsup-without-gui, emacs-nox11, etc. but one mistake with some > port, and you get the whole boatload, and you can never scrape it all > out. I think you're looking for WITHOUT_X11=yes :) G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.netr...@space.bgr...@freebsd.org PGP key:http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 This sentence contradicts itself - or rather - well, no, actually it doesn't! pgp2ym69pKw2J.pgp Description: PGP signature
make.conf no x option
as so many folk build server-only, there must e a make.conf or whatever option to tell ports that you just do not want an x server or any of it's 500kg friends. but i can not seem to find it. i do cvsup-without-gui, emacs-nox11, etc. but one mistake with some port, and you get the whole boatload, and you can never scrape it all out. clue bat, please. randy ___ 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"
Re: emulators/linux_base-f10 = Fedora 8?
On Mon, 25 May 2009 20:49:50 +0100 Steven Hartland wrote: > Why does emulators/linux_base-f10 contain a Fedora 8 port > most confusing! It was just a repocopy. I'm working on it, just enotime now. WBR -- bsam ___ 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"
Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
From: Pav Lucistnik
Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:48:25 +0200
> David Naylor pí¹e v út 26. 05. 2009 v 08:19 +0200:
>
>> pav: ${_MAKE_JOBS:C/-j//} won't work with DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS (or
>> MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE) since it needs to always be a positive number, secondly it
>> still cannot be used for conditional code (since it is defined in the post
>> section, but the whole code could always be moved to the pre section).
>
> I'm hesitant to modify bsd.port.mk for benefit of just four ports.
> Also, I think having MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER set to 1 when the feature is in
> fact disable, is counter-intuitive (because -j1 is very different to no
> -j at all).
>
> So how about just having
>
> .if defined(DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS)
> MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER= 1
> .else
> MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER!=echo `${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
> .endif
>
> in ooo makefile?
for me ok.
thank you
-- Nakata Maho http://accc.riken.jp/maho/ , http://ja.openoffice.org/
Nakata Maho's PGP public keys: http://accc.riken.jp/maho/maho.pgp.txt
pgpCZxCowHeUX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
David Naylor píše v út 26. 05. 2009 v 08:19 +0200:
> pav: ${_MAKE_JOBS:C/-j//} won't work with DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS (or
> MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE) since it needs to always be a positive number, secondly it
> still cannot be used for conditional code (since it is defined in the post
> section, but the whole code could always be moved to the pre section).
I'm hesitant to modify bsd.port.mk for benefit of just four ports.
Also, I think having MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER set to 1 when the feature is in
fact disable, is counter-intuitive (because -j1 is very different to no
-j at all).
So how about just having
.if defined(DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS)
MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER= 1
.else
MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER!= echo `${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
.endif
in ooo makefile?
--
Pav Lucistnik
Go back to bed America, your government is in control again. Here's
American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up. Here's 56 channels of it.
Watch these pituitary retards bang their fuckin skulls together and
congratulate you on living in the land of freedom.
-- Bill Hicks
signature.asc
Description: Toto je digitálně podepsaná část zprávy
