On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:57:51 -0400
Coleman Kane wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 19:30 +0300, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> > * Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> >
> > > > > This would break very fast -- it's passing -j3 to port Makefile
> > > > > instead
> > > > > of vendor Makefile.
> > > >
Dmitry Marakasov píše v pá 27. 03. 2009 v 15:48 +0300:
> * Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
>
> > > second
> > > also improves MAKE_JOBS_* handling, shortening it a bit and exposing
> > > MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER to the ports, so it can be used for other build systems
> > > without having to parse
* Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> > second
> > also improves MAKE_JOBS_* handling, shortening it a bit and exposing
> > MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER to the ports, so it can be used for other build systems
> > without having to parse out -j from _MAKE_JOBS (and defaults to 1 if
> > jobs support is di
Dmitry Marakasov píše v pá 27. 03. 2009 v 04:02 +0300:
> * Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
>
> > > Btw, this change broke build failures. If vendor's make fails,
> > > .build_done.xxx._usr_local is still created in work and $? = 0 as if it
> > > have succeeded.
> >
> > Can you give me a h
* Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> > Btw, this change broke build failures. If vendor's make fails,
> > .build_done.xxx._usr_local is still created in work and $? = 0 as if it
> > have succeeded.
>
> Can you give me a hard example?
Test port consisting of a sole Makefile attached.
I've
Garrett Cooper píše v čt 26. 03. 2009 v 11:55 -0700:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> > * Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> >
> > Btw, this change broke build failures. If vendor's make fails,
> > .build_done.xxx._usr_local is still created in work and $? = 0 a
Dmitry Marakasov píše v čt 26. 03. 2009 v 20:46 +0300:
> * Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
>
> Btw, this change broke build failures. If vendor's make fails,
> .build_done.xxx._usr_local is still created in work and $? = 0 as if it
> have succeeded.
Can you give me a hard example?
--
Pa
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> * Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
>
> Btw, this change broke build failures. If vendor's make fails,
> .build_done.xxx._usr_local is still created in work and $? = 0 as if it
> have succeeded.
Another thing that may have fail
* Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
Btw, this change broke build failures. If vendor's make fails,
.build_done.xxx._usr_local is still created in work and $? = 0 as if it
have succeeded.
--
Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D
amd...@amdmi3.ru ..: jab
On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 19:30 +0300, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> * Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
>
> > > > This would break very fast -- it's passing -j3 to port Makefile instead
> > > > of vendor Makefile.
> > >
> > > This has worked fine for me for countless years, except where the
> > >
Dmitry Marakasov píše v st 25. 03. 2009 v 19:36 +0300:
> * Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
>
> Great, that was just about time.
>
> My question is whenther that would be enabled on pointyhat. I fear
> that error logs may become far less readable with output from
> multiple commands mixed
* Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
Great, that was just about time.
My question is whenther that would be enabled on pointyhat. I fear
that error logs may become far less readable with output from
multiple commands mixed together.
We may also consider using -P option for BSD make for that
* Pav Lucistnik (p...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> > > This would break very fast -- it's passing -j3 to port Makefile instead
> > > of vendor Makefile.
> >
> > This has worked fine for me for countless years, except where the
> > vendor's Makefiles were not parallel-safe. This has been my trick to get
Anonymous píše v st 25. 03. 2009 v 12:51 +0300:
> FYI, that example went to ports/133054.
Cool. Just a side note -- boost is having a major overhaul, so you might
want to coordinate with the folks who currently do the work, too.
--
Pav Lucistnik
Like 'Do Notte Buye Betamacks.'
Pav Lucistnik writes:
> Anonymous pí¹e v st 25. 03. 2009 v 09:26 +0300:
>> Pav Lucistnik writes:
>>
>> > If you are FreeBSD port maintainer:
>>
>> I'm not one.
>>
>> >
>> > Nothing changes for you, if you don't want. If you want to enable the
>> > use of multiple cores in your port, add MAKE_
Anonymous píše v st 25. 03. 2009 v 09:26 +0300:
> Pav Lucistnik writes:
>
> > If you are FreeBSD port maintainer:
>
> I'm not one.
>
> >
> > Nothing changes for you, if you don't want. If you want to enable the
> > use of multiple cores in your port, add MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=yes to a block
> > somewh
Pav Lucistnik writes:
> If you are FreeBSD port maintainer:
I'm not one.
>
> Nothing changes for you, if you don't want. If you want to enable the
> use of multiple cores in your port, add MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=yes to a block
> somewhere below dependency declarations. If you know your port does not
>
Christian Weisgerber píše v út 24. 03. 2009 v 18:09 +:
> > If you are FreeBSD port maintainer:
> >
> > Nothing changes for you, if you don't want. If you want to enable the
> > use of multiple cores in your port, add MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=yes to a block
> > somewhere below dependency declarations.
>
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Ports framework now systematically supports building ports on
> multiple processing cores. It is achieved by passing -jX flag to make(1)
> running on vendor code. Of course not all ports handle this well,
A word of caution: It is quite possible for a port to build fine
wi
Coleman Kane píše v út 24. 03. 2009 v 12:28 -0400:
> On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 16:19 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > Coleman Kane píše v út 24. 03. 2009 v 10:58 -0400:
> > > On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 15:54 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > > > Niclas Zeising píše v út 24. 03. 2009 v 15:28 +0100:
> > > >
> >
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 16:19 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Coleman Kane píše v út 24. 03. 2009 v 10:58 -0400:
> > On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 15:54 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > > Niclas Zeising píše v út 24. 03. 2009 v 15:28 +0100:
> > >
> > > > Not to nitpick or be an annoyance, but you might want to
Coleman Kane píše v út 24. 03. 2009 v 10:58 -0400:
> On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 15:54 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > Niclas Zeising píše v út 24. 03. 2009 v 15:28 +0100:
> >
> > > Not to nitpick or be an annoyance, but you might want to document this
> > > in ports(7) or make.conf(5) (or both) so it
On Tue, 2009-03-24 at 15:54 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Niclas Zeising píše v út 24. 03. 2009 v 15:28 +0100:
>
> > Not to nitpick or be an annoyance, but you might want to document this
> > in ports(7) or make.conf(5) (or both) so it doesn't get lost in the
> > mail-lists or if people are not
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 03:04:41PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > Two days ago, I have checked in probably most requested feature of last
> > few years. Ports framework now systematically supports building ports on
> > multiple processing cores. It is achieved by passing -jX fl
Niclas Zeising píše v út 24. 03. 2009 v 15:28 +0100:
> Not to nitpick or be an annoyance, but you might want to document this
> in ports(7) or make.conf(5) (or both) so it doesn't get lost in the
> mail-lists or if people are not reading ports@
I will document it soon, thinking The Handbook wou
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Niclas Zeising
wrote:
> Great work!
Indeed.
>
> Not to nitpick or be an annoyance, but you might want to document this in
> ports(7) or make.conf(5) (or both) so it doesn't get lost in the mail-lists
> or if people are not reading ports@
>
Can it be added to UP
Great work!
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Two days ago, I have checked in probably most requested feature of last
few years. Ports framework now systematically supports building ports on
multiple processing cores. It is achieved by passing -jX flag to make(1)
running on vendor code. Of course not all por
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Two days ago, I have checked in probably most requested feature of last
> few years. Ports framework now systematically supports building ports on
> multiple processing cores. It is achieved by passing -jX flag to make(1)
> running on vendor code.
Thanks for this very usefu
Two days ago, I have checked in probably most requested feature of last
few years. Ports framework now systematically supports building ports on
multiple processing cores. It is achieved by passing -jX flag to make(1)
running on vendor code. Of course not all ports handle this well,
experimental ru
29 matches
Mail list logo
