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

On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 09:22:15AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> 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).
> 
Yes.  The presence of MAKE_JOBS_FIFO in environment causes the new
make(1) to run in parallel mode when none of -j and -B options are
specified (either explicitly or through the MAKEFLAGS envariable).
I mentioned it to Poul-Henning that I believe it was a mistake, but
he disagrees, and I don't want to argue about it.


Cheers,
-- 
Ruslan Ermilov
ru_at_FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer