David Naylor wrote:
On Saturday 06 June 2009 22:56:47 Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 18:05:14 +0200
David Naylor wrote:
P.S. Is anyone interested in a list of ports that do not compile
under tmpfs?
Me.
The following are on my blacklist for tmpfs build, where:
On Saturday 06 June 2009 22:56:47 Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 18:05:14 +0200
>
> David Naylor wrote:
> > P.S. Is anyone interested in a list of ports that do not compile
> > under tmpfs?
>
> Me.
The following are on my blacklist for tmpfs build, where:
# df -h | grep tmp
tmpfs
On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 18:05:14 +0200
David Naylor wrote:
> P.S. Is anyone interested in a list of ports that do not compile
> under tmpfs?
Me.
--
IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
"Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect"
FreeBSD committer -> ite...@freebsd
On Thursday 21 May 2009 13:56:46 Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2009 12:05:22 +0200, David Naylor wrote
>
> > The following ports failed to build on my system (with a quad core)
> > and FORCE_MAKE_JOBS set. They did success to build once I added
> > MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE=yes to their Makefile's
Hi David and *
thanks for your patch, I verified and committed.
Best,
From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu
Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:39:42 +0300
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:26:01 +0900 (JST)
> Maho NAKATA wrote:
>
>> From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:26:01 +0900 (JST)
Maho NAKATA wrote:
> From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu
> Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
> Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:38:18 +0300
>
> > On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:25:35 +0900 (JST)
> > Maho NAKATA wrote:
> >
> >>
From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu
Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:38:18 +0300
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:25:35 +0900 (JST)
> Maho NAKATA wrote:
>
>> thanks for raising as PR :)
>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=135262
>
> Some
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:25:35 +0900 (JST)
Maho NAKATA wrote:
> thanks for raising as PR :)
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=135262
Some support has been committed by Pav, can you please check his commit
and adjust OOo ports to make use of it? This way I could have all OOo
ports tested
thanks for raising as PR :)
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=135262
-- 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
pgpOxw8vi6mZA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
2009/5/21 David Naylor :
> Hi,
>
> The following ports failed to build on my system (with a quad core) and
> FORCE_MAKE_JOBS set. They did success to build once I added
> MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE=yes to their Makefile's.
>
> devel/nasm
> graphics/libart_lgpl
> lang/ocaml
> multimedia/mplayer
> multimedia/
Hi David, I'll go to Canada for attending conference tomorrow.be back on 6/4.
see 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
pgpVkDXepD1Ih.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tuesday 26 May 2009 23:23:16 Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> 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 usi
From: Pav Lucistnik
Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 23:23:16 +0200
> 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 defin
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 chang
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 cod
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 alwa
David Naylor píše v út 26. 05. 2009 v 08:19 +0200:
> pav: ${_MAKE_JOBS:C/-j//} won't work with DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS (or
> MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE) since it needs to always be a positive number, secondly it
> still cannot be used for conditional code (since it is defined in the post
> section, but the who
code could always be moved to the pre section).
> Best,
>
> From: David Naylor
> Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
> Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 22:47:29 +0200
>
> > On Monday 25 May 2009 20:01:25 Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> >> On Mon, 25 May 2009 10:03
Hi David,
Thanks kudos for tough works and discussions!
David, is this the final patch which I should test?
Best,
From: David Naylor
Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 22:47:29 +0200
> On Monday 25 May 2009 20:01:25 Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
>> On Mo
On Monday 25 May 2009 20:01:25 Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2009 10:03:12 +0200
>
> David Naylor wrote:
> > On Sunday 24 May 2009 21:37:45 Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> > > On Sun, 24 May 2009 10:26:23 +0200
> > >
> > > David Naylor wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 24 May 2009 00:16:37 Maho NAKATA
On Mon, 25 May 2009 10:03:12 +0200
David Naylor wrote:
> On Sunday 24 May 2009 21:37:45 Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 May 2009 10:26:23 +0200
> >
> > David Naylor wrote:
> > > On Sunday 24 May 2009 00:16:37 Maho NAKATA wrote:
> > > > Hi I tested it yesterday,
> > > >
> > > > 1.
> > > > I
On Monday 25 May 2009 17:14:01 Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> David Naylor píše v po 25. 05. 2009 v 10:11 +0200:
> > > > > > > > This part looks OK, I wonder if there's any reason t ain't
> > > > > > > > like this now; Pav?
> > > > > > > > -.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER)
> > > > > > > > +MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER?=
David Naylor píše v po 25. 05. 2009 v 10:11 +0200:
> > > > > > > This part looks OK, I wonder if there's any reason t ain't like
> > > > > > > this now; Pav?
> > > > > > > -.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER)
> > > > > > > +MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER?= `${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
> > > > > > > _MAKE_JOBS=
On Sunday 24 May 2009 21:55:56 Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> David Naylor píše v ne 24. 05. 2009 v 20:07 +0200:
> > On Sunday 24 May 2009 18:27:57 Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > > Ion-Mihai Tetcu píše v ne 24. 05. 2009 v 19:01 +0300:
> > > > On Sun, 24 May 2009 16:10:23 +0200
> > > >
> > > > Pav Lucistnik wrot
On Sunday 24 May 2009 21:37:45 Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 10:26:23 +0200
>
> David Naylor wrote:
> > On Sunday 24 May 2009 00:16:37 Maho NAKATA wrote:
> > > Hi I tested it yesterday,
> > >
> > > 1.
> > > I need
> > >
> > > > MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=yes
> > >
> > > in the Makefile.
David Naylor píše v ne 24. 05. 2009 v 20:07 +0200:
> On Sunday 24 May 2009 18:27:57 Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > Ion-Mihai Tetcu píše v ne 24. 05. 2009 v 19:01 +0300:
> > > On Sun, 24 May 2009 16:10:23 +0200
> > >
> > > Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > > > Ion-Mihai Tetcu píše v so 23. 05. 2009 v 13:51 +0300:
On Sun, 24 May 2009 10:26:23 +0200
David Naylor wrote:
> On Sunday 24 May 2009 00:16:37 Maho NAKATA wrote:
> > Hi I tested it yesterday,
> >
> > 1.
> > I need
> >
> > > MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=yes
> >
> > in the Makefile.
>
> Yes, you would need that. I believe that will be default.
>
> > 2.
On Sunday 24 May 2009 18:27:57 Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu píše v ne 24. 05. 2009 v 19:01 +0300:
> > On Sun, 24 May 2009 16:10:23 +0200
> >
> > Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > > Ion-Mihai Tetcu píše v so 23. 05. 2009 v 13:51 +0300:
> > > > > > - MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER defaults (but user defined) to
Ion-Mihai Tetcu píše v ne 24. 05. 2009 v 19:01 +0300:
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 16:10:23 +0200
> Pav Lucistnik wrote:
>
> > Ion-Mihai Tetcu píše v so 23. 05. 2009 v 13:51 +0300:
> >
> > > > > - MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER defaults (but user defined) to number of
> > > > > cores
> > >
> > > This part looks OK,
On Sun, 24 May 2009 16:10:23 +0200
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu píše v so 23. 05. 2009 v 13:51 +0300:
>
> > > > - MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER defaults (but user defined) to number of
> > > > cores
> >
> > This part looks OK, I wonder if there's any reason t ain't like this
> > now; Pav?
> > -.if
Ion-Mihai Tetcu píše v so 23. 05. 2009 v 13:51 +0300:
> > > - MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER defaults (but user defined) to number of cores
>
> This part looks OK, I wonder if there's any reason t ain't like this
> now; Pav?
> -.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER)
> +MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER?= `${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
On Sun, 24 May 2009 10:26:23 +0200
David Naylor wrote:
> On Sunday 24 May 2009 00:16:37 Maho NAKATA wrote:
> > Hi I tested it yesterday,
> >
> > 1.
> > I need
> >
> > > MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=yes
> >
> > in the Makefile.
>
> Yes, you would need that. I believe that will be default.
>
> > 2.
On Sunday 24 May 2009 00:16:37 Maho NAKATA wrote:
> Hi I tested it yesterday,
>
> 1.
> I need
>
> > MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=yes
>
> in the Makefile.
Yes, you would need that. I believe that will be default.
> 2. with above patch, ooo2 doesn't launch parallele jobs.
I spotted that problem after
Hi I tested it yesterday,
1.
I need
> MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=yes
in the Makefile.
2. with above patch, ooo2 doesn't launch parallele jobs.
3. ooo3, 3-rc, 3-devel are okay with patch 1.
thanks
-- Nakata Maho http://accc.riken.jp/maho/ , http://ja.openoffice.org/
Nakata Maho's PGP public keys:
On Saturday 23 May 2009 12:51:33 Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 18:24:26 +0900 (JST)
> Maho NAKATA wrote:
> > > Please see attached for the patch. The changes to bsd.port.mk:
> > > - MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER always defined
> > > - MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER forced to 1 if UNSAFE of DISABLE
>
> AFAIR
gt;
> Please wait a few days to say ok.
I'll give them a try during this weekend.
> From: David Naylor
> Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
> Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 11:01:56 +0200
[ .. ]
> > Please see attached for the patch. The changes to bsd.port.mk:
&
27;s broken,
its OOo issue. We should identify if dependencies are missing.
-devel ports can be unsafe but 3, 3-RC 2, 2-RC must be safe.
Please wait a few days to say ok.
Best,
From: David Naylor
Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 11:01:56 +0200
> On Frida
On Friday 22 May 2009 15:41:38 Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2009 19:53:50 +0900 (JST)
>
> Maho NAKATA wrote:
> > In massive parallel build, OOo can be broken. We explicitly
> > fix them otherwise broken. I just test with MAXJOB = 4 or something
> > like that.
> >
> > > I had it compla
On Fri, 22 May 2009 16:30:19 -0400
"Philip M. Gollucci" wrote:
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> > I can run a few test builds on QAT and maybe Phillip can do the
> > same on his tindy. Just drop us the patch ;-)
> > Even if it only works with MAXJOB = 2, we mark it as such and the
> > build will be fas
Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> I can run a few test builds on QAT and maybe Phillip can do the same on
> his tindy. Just drop us the patch ;-)
> Even if it only works with MAXJOB = 2, we mark it as such and the build
> will be faster.
LOL. Do it once and I get volunteered.
Too funny. Sure I'm up for som
On Fri, 22 May 2009 19:53:50 +0900 (JST)
Maho NAKATA wrote:
> In massive parallel build, OOo can be broken. We explicitly
> fix them otherwise broken. I just test with MAXJOB = 4 or something
> like that.
>
> > I had it complain about perl (or
> > something) needing to be recompiled but that w
Hi David,
From: David Naylor
Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 12:24:30 +0200
> On Friday 22 May 2009 07:11:19 Maho NAKATA wrote:
>> Dear,
>>
>> I appriciate David or Ion-Mihai make a patch for that.
>> just seetting MAXMODULE
(simple enough though).
> From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu
> Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 08:03:42 +0300
>
> > On Thu, 21 May 2009 12:05:22 +0200
> >
> > David Naylor wrote:
> >> P.P.S. editors/openoffice-3 does not obey MAKE_JO
Dear,
I appriciate David or Ion-Mihai make a patch for that.
just seetting MAXMODULE=4 and/or MAXPROCESSES=4 or something like that.
But note that sometimes it's broken :-( by missing dependencey.
From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu
Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)
Date: Fri, 22 May 20
On Thu, 21 May 2009 12:05:22 +0200
David Naylor wrote:
> P.P.S. editors/openoffice-3 does not obey MAKE_JOBS, it requires
> MAXMODULES and MAXPROCESSES set (should I file a PR?).
Anything reducing OOo build time would be great :-)
--
IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
"Intellectual P
On Thu, 21 May 2009 12:05:22 +0200, David Naylor wrote
> The following ports failed to build on my system (with a quad core)
> and FORCE_MAKE_JOBS set. They did success to build once I added
> MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE=yes to their Makefile's.
Marked in CVS, thank you!
> Is there any effort to mark po
Hi,
The following ports failed to build on my system (with a quad core) and
FORCE_MAKE_JOBS set. They did success to build once I added
MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE=yes to their Makefile's.
devel/nasm
graphics/libart_lgpl
lang/ocaml
multimedia/mplayer
multimedia/smplayer
security/nss
Is there any effor
47 matches
Mail list logo
