Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2]

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:11:37 +0100 (CET)
Harti Brandt <harti_at_freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 Alexander_at_Leidinger.net wrote:
> 
> > Zitat von Harti Brandt <harti_at_freebsd.org>:
> >
> >> PK>>If yes: we have some ports which aren't -j safe, so this would violate
> >> PK>>POLA.
> >> PK>
> >> PK>That is what "make -B" is for.
> >>
> >> Or .NOTPARALLEL
> >
> > I'm not talking about /usr/ports/category/port/Makefile, I'm talking about
> > /usr/ports/category/port/work/tarball_dir/**/Makefile. We don't have
> > control about those Makefiles.
> >
> > As much as I like a flag in the Makefile of a port which indicates
> > that a port can't be build with -j, we don't have this and the last time
> > this topic was discussed there was a strong objection to something like
> > this.
> >
> > So this change may break procedures which worked so far.
> 
> How? If you specify -j on the port's make the -j gets passed down to all 
> sub-makes via MAKEFLAGS and they use it. The difference is just that the 
> overall number of jobs started is now limited by the original -j.

In my first mail I made an example where a portupgrade is in between two
make processes. make runs several portupgrade processes in parallel and
portupgrade calls make. AFAIK this doesn't result in in an invocation of
portupgrades child-make with -j. With phk's changes the child-make of
portupgrade uses the FIFO (at least this is what I read implicitly in
phk's response above).

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
              The best things in life are free, but the
                expensive ones are still worth a look.

http://www.Leidinger.net                       Alexander _at_ Leidinger.net
  GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91  3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7