Re: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE the default?
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:09:02AM +0800, Martin Wilke wrote:
Hi,
Since we are back on normal rolling packages update for stable and I got
pointyhat-west up to do some testing, I would like to move on with this
case.
I just wonder if someone already has a patch to make it as default, else
I will have a look at it within this week.
Howdy,
I've cooked something up; only barely tested. Eventually BUILD_FAIL_MESSAGE
can probably go away.
FORCE_MAKE_JOBS is removed because it is the default. While here, I've
moved empty(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER) check higher, IMHO where it should belong,
also saves a few lines. Reviews are welcome.
./danfe
Index: bsd.port.mk
===
--- bsd.port.mk (revision 318744)
+++ bsd.port.mk (working copy)
@@ -913,9 +913,6 @@
# To be used with known bad ports.
# DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS
#- Set to disable the multiple jobs feature. User settable.
-# FORCE_MAKE_JOBS
-#- Force all ports to be built with multiple jobs, except ports
-# that are explicitly marked MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE. User settable.
# MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER
#- Override the number of make jobs to be used. User settable.
## cacche
@@ -2160,20 +2157,15 @@
# Multiple make jobs support
.if defined(DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS) || defined(MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE)
_MAKE_JOBS= #
+MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER?= 1
.else
-.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_SAFE) || defined(FORCE_MAKE_JOBS)
MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER?= `${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
_MAKE_JOBS?= -j${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.
+.if !defined(MAKE_JOBS_SAFE)
+BUILD_FAIL_MESSAGE+= Try to set MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE=yes and rebuild before reporting the failure to the maintainer.
.endif
.endif
-.endif
-.if empty(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER)
-MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER= 1
-.endif
-
# ccache support
# Support NO_CCACHE for common setups, require WITH_CCACHE_BUILD, and
# don't use if ccache already set in CC
___
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: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE the default?
On 5/23/2013 2:56 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 11:09:02AM +0800, Martin Wilke wrote: Hi, Since we are back on normal rolling packages update for stable and I got pointyhat-west up to do some testing, I would like to move on with this case. I just wonder if someone already has a patch to make it as default, else I will have a look at it within this week. Howdy, I've cooked something up; only barely tested. Eventually BUILD_FAIL_MESSAGE can probably go away. FORCE_MAKE_JOBS is removed because it is the default. While here, I've moved empty(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER) check higher, IMHO where it should belong, also saves a few lines. Reviews are welcome. ./danfe Moving MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER is wrong, see r317639 -- Regards, Bryan Drewery signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE the default?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:18:26AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: On 5/23/2013 2:56 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: FORCE_MAKE_JOBS is removed because it is the default. While here, I've moved empty(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER) check higher, IMHO where it should belong, also saves a few lines. Reviews are welcome. Moving MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER is wrong, see r317639 Hmm, can you explain a bit more? Maybe I am missing something here, but as I read log for r317639: [F]ix MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER not being set if none of DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS or MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE or MAKE_JOBS_SAFE or FORCE_MAKE_JOBS were set. Previously (without my patch) it could happen because of nested .if's. Now _MAKE_JOBS is set in both branches (true and false). Simple test on a port that does not set any MAKE_JOBS_* stuff, e.g. games/qcc: $ make -V MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER `/sbin/sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus` $ make -V MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER -DDISABLE_MAKE_JOBS 1 $ make -V MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER -DMAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE 1 $ make -V MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER -DMAKE_JOBS_SAFE `/sbin/sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus` $ make -V MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER -DFORCE_MAKE_JOBS `/sbin/sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus` Can you show how can I get undefined _MAKE_JOBS? ./danfe ___ 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: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE the default?
On 5/23/2013 8:00 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:18:26AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: On 5/23/2013 2:56 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: FORCE_MAKE_JOBS is removed because it is the default. While here, I've moved empty(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER) check higher, IMHO where it should belong, also saves a few lines. Reviews are welcome. Moving MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER is wrong, see r317639 Hmm, can you explain a bit more? Maybe I am missing something here, but as I read log for r317639: [F]ix MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER not being set if none of DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS or MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE or MAKE_JOBS_SAFE or FORCE_MAKE_JOBS were set. Previously (without my patch) it could happen because of nested .if's. Now _MAKE_JOBS is set in both branches (true and false). Simple test on a port that does not set any MAKE_JOBS_* stuff, e.g. games/qcc: $ make -V MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER `/sbin/sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus` $ make -V MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER -DDISABLE_MAKE_JOBS 1 $ make -V MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER -DMAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE 1 $ make -V MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER -DMAKE_JOBS_SAFE `/sbin/sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus` $ make -V MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER -DFORCE_MAKE_JOBS `/sbin/sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus` Can you show how can I get undefined _MAKE_JOBS? ./danfe I see now. You removed this -.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_SAFE) || defined(FORCE_MAKE_JOBS) So it should be fine now. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE the default?
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 09:14:21AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: On 5/23/2013 8:00 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:18:26AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: On 5/23/2013 2:56 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: FORCE_MAKE_JOBS is removed because it is the default. While here, I've moved empty(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER) check higher, IMHO where it should belong, also saves a few lines. Reviews are welcome. Moving MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER is wrong, see r317639 Hmm, can you explain a bit more? Maybe I am missing something here, but as I read log for r317639: [F]ix MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER not being set if none of DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS or MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE or MAKE_JOBS_SAFE or FORCE_MAKE_JOBS were set. Previously (without my patch) it could happen because of nested .if's. Now _MAKE_JOBS is set in both branches (true and false). [...] I see now. You removed this -.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_SAFE) || defined(FORCE_MAKE_JOBS) So it should be fine now. Right. Just to make it clear (for everyone who is reading): previously we needed FORCE_MAKE_JOBS as it was not the default; now we don't need it and it was removed; thus making second .if check needless. Ergo, we can easily ensure that _MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER is always set now, without using the separate check for its emptiness (after the .if). ./danfe ___ 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: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE the default?
Hi, Since we are back on normal rolling packages update for stable and I got pointyhat-west up to do some testing, I would like to move on with this case. I just wonder if someone already has a patch to make it as default, else I will have a look at it within this week. - Martin On Mar 15, 2013, at 9:18 AM, Martin Wilke miwi.free...@gmail.com wrote: I added Alexey here because he had asked for the same since few weeks ago. Yes we are able to do exp-runs now. But to be honest the ports tree is in general in bad stat, our priority for the moment is to fix the ports tree to get a good package set for the 8.4 release. After we are done with this we will definitely come back to this issue. I'd like to ask you once again to have a bit patience. We are doing our best to serve every request as much as possible. Also I'd like to remind you our back log is getting pretty long too. Thanks for your understanding. - Martin on behalf of portmgr +-oOO--(_)--OOo-+ With best Regards, Martin Wilke (miwi_(at)_FreeBSD.org) Mess with the Best, Die like the Rest On Mar 15, 2013, at 8:44 AM, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote: My proposal: - start an exp-run with FORCE_MAKE_JOBS set - mark all new failures with MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE - flip the default right after the 9.1 release. Now that we seem to have exp-run support again it is time to re-raise this issue. Can we please have an exp-run, mark all the failures, and then flip the switch? This may have to be done recursively, but most of the major blockers have already been marked. -- Eitan Adler ___ 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 ___ 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 +-oOO--(_)--OOo-+ With best Regards, Martin Wilke (miwi_(at)_FreeBSD.org) Mess with the Best, Die like the Rest ___ 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: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE the default?
My proposal: - start an exp-run with FORCE_MAKE_JOBS set - mark all new failures with MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE - flip the default right after the 9.1 release. Now that we seem to have exp-run support again it is time to re-raise this issue. Can we please have an exp-run, mark all the failures, and then flip the switch? This may have to be done recursively, but most of the major blockers have already been marked. -- Eitan Adler ___ 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: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE the default?
I added Alexey here because he had asked for the same since few weeks ago. Yes we are able to do exp-runs now. But to be honest the ports tree is in general in bad stat, our priority for the moment is to fix the ports tree to get a good package set for the 8.4 release. After we are done with this we will definitely come back to this issue. I'd like to ask you once again to have a bit patience. We are doing our best to serve every request as much as possible. Also I'd like to remind you our back log is getting pretty long too. Thanks for your understanding. - Martin on behalf of portmgr +-oOO--(_)--OOo-+ With best Regards, Martin Wilke (miwi_(at)_FreeBSD.org) Mess with the Best, Die like the Rest On Mar 15, 2013, at 8:44 AM, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote: My proposal: - start an exp-run with FORCE_MAKE_JOBS set - mark all new failures with MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE - flip the default right after the 9.1 release. Now that we seem to have exp-run support again it is time to re-raise this issue. Can we please have an exp-run, mark all the failures, and then flip the switch? This may have to be done recursively, but most of the major blockers have already been marked. -- Eitan Adler ___ 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 ___ 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: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE the default?
On 11 September 2012 12:13, Olivier Smedts oliv...@gid0.org wrote: 2012/9/4 Bryan Drewery br...@shatow.net: My proposal: - start an exp-run with FORCE_MAKE_JOBS set - mark all new failures with MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE - flip the default right after the 9.1 release. ... It has been months since I sent this mail without any official reply whatsoever. At this point the exp-run machines are down and not likely to return in the *near* future. Can I propose that this flag be flipped without an exp-run and fix the fallout? It has been widely tested and has had exp-runs in the past. -- Eitan Adler ___ 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: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE the default?
On 16 January 2013 20:48, Eitan Adler li...@eitanadler.com wrote: On 11 September 2012 12:13, Olivier Smedts oliv...@gid0.org wrote: 2012/9/4 Bryan Drewery br...@shatow.net: My proposal: - start an exp-run with FORCE_MAKE_JOBS set - mark all new failures with MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE - flip the default right after the 9.1 release. ... It has been months since I sent this mail without any official reply whatsoever. At this point the exp-run machines are down and not likely to return in the *near* future. Can I propose that this flag be flipped without an exp-run and fix the fallout? It has been widely tested and has had exp-runs in the past. I think this would be extremely hard to justify, given that the ports tree is a live entity. We would effectively be asking our end users to debug MAKE_JOBS. This is not acceptable; we can't plan to have fallout. Chris ___ 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: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE the default?
2012/9/4 Bryan Drewery br...@shatow.net: My proposal: - start an exp-run with FORCE_MAKE_JOBS set - mark all new failures with MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE - flip the default right after the 9.1 release. +1 too except for devel/libftdi which just failed on me right now, was ok after setting MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE. -- Olivier Smedts _ ASCII ribbon campaign ( ) e-mail: oliv...@gid0.org- against HTML email vCards X www: http://www.gid0.org- against proprietary attachments / \ Il y a seulement 10 sortes de gens dans le monde : ceux qui comprennent le binaire, et ceux qui ne le comprennent pas. ___ 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: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE the default?
On 9/4/2012 12:17 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: When MAKE_JOBS was originally introduced the intent was to flip the default after some amount of time and testing. Last this issue came up there were objections based on the 7.4 release, 8.2 release, gmake upgrade, and other wide scale changes. I think it is time to revisit this discussion. My proposal: - start an exp-run with FORCE_MAKE_JOBS set - mark all new failures with MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE - flip the default right after the 9.1 release. +1 I've had this default on my systems for many years now. All of the broken ports I've known about have been fixed or flagged. Bryan ___ 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: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE as default
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 10:14:46PM +0300, Anonymous wrote: Alexey Dokuchaev da...@freebsd.org writes: On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 07:12:22AM -0600, Ade Lovett wrote: Given that we're _really_ close to 7.4/8.2 -- not this side of January mumble -- random uneducated guess. In time for 9.0. I understand that it's not in time for upcoming releases, but I'd like to push the change after the ports tree is unslushed. 7.4/8.2 are officially out. Didn't you request an -exp run yet? I'm not sure if it's perfect time for this right now, as new gmake is supposed to hit the tree soon, and flipping -jX switch now could jeopardize the transit. Maybe portmgr@ (if they're reading this) can provide some guidance on how to handle this the best way. ./danfe ___ 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: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE as default
Alexey Dokuchaev da...@freebsd.org writes: On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 07:12:22AM -0600, Ade Lovett wrote: On Dec 23, 2010, at 03:18 , Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: I'd really like to see that happen. If there is anything I can help with, don't hesitate to ask. :-) Given that we're _really_ close to 7.4/8.2 -- not this side of January mumble -- random uneducated guess. In time for 9.0. I understand that it's not in time for upcoming releases, but I'd like to push the change after the ports tree is unslushed. 7.4/8.2 are officially out. Didn't you request an -exp run yet? I've tried to look at pointyhat.freebsd.org but it's opaque regarding what patches were used for each -exp run. And there is no PR. -- just a reminder ___ 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: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE as default
On Dec 23, 2010, at 03:18 , Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: I'd really like to see that happen. If there is anything I can help with, don't hesitate to ask. :-) Given that we're _really_ close to 7.4/8.2 -- not this side of January mumble -- random uneducated guess. In time for 9.0. -aDe ___ 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: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE as default
This is a resend, because I forgot to CC ports.
On 23/12/2010 10:18, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
Hi there,
As far as I remember, when _MAKE_JOBS functionality was introduced, one
of the ultimate goals was to flip the switch at some point so ports are
built with -jX unless marked as MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE. What is current
situation and consensus? Are we ready for that? If not, what is
preventing us to do so? Is there some road-map, plan, or time frame?
I'd really like to see that happen. If there is anything I can help
with, don't hesitate to ask. :-)
Me too. This is my list of things that don't work with
FORCE_MAKE_JOBS, considering the number of packages on my
system it's pretty short. It might be incomplete,
or contain entries that no longer cause problems:
archivers/p7zip
audio/cdparanoia
audio/nas
converters/libiconv
devel/autoconf261
devel/doxygen
devel/gperf
devel/gobject-introspection
devel/icu
devel/libthai
devel/nasm
devel/ncurses
devel/ORBit2
devel/pth
dns/libidn
editors/vim
games/ultimatestunts
graphics/ImageMagick
graphics/libafterimage{!FORCE_MAKE_JOBS}
graphics/libart_lgpl
graphics/pstoedit
java/openjdk*
java/eclipse
multimedia/mplayer
multimedia/mencoder
net/mDNSResponder
print/ghostscript*
security/nss
security/cyrus-sasl2
textproc/jade
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
___
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: Plans for making MAKE_JOBS_SAFE as default
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 07:12:22AM -0600, Ade Lovett wrote: On Dec 23, 2010, at 03:18 , Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: I'd really like to see that happen. If there is anything I can help with, don't hesitate to ask. :-) Given that we're _really_ close to 7.4/8.2 -- not this side of January mumble -- random uneducated guess. In time for 9.0. I understand that it's not in time for upcoming releases, but I'd like to push the change after the ports tree is unslushed. ./danfe ___ 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
