On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:58:57 +0100 Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One shortcoming is the lack of locking making parallell builds a bit unsafe. > If you try to build both port A and port B at the same time, and both A and > B depends (directly or indirectly) on port C which is not installed, then > you can esily end up having two processes both trying to build C at the same > time. This usually confuses both builds very badly making them fail. > > I also don't think there is any locking on /var/db/pkg making possibly > somewhat unsafe trying to register the installation of two ports/packages at > the same time. I have never noticed any actual problems with this though. > > > Some sort of locking, making parallel builds safe, should be possible to > add to the ports system without doing any sweeping changes. > (I did look briefly at the makefiles, but did not find any obvious place > to put the locking. I probably just did not look hard enough.) The ports system is to "install" a new port. It won't be easy to accomplish what you suggest. For example, dependencies are checked one at a time. So, even if you want to run multiple processes on LIB_DEPENDS, there is no easy way to control CPU load. It is a better idea for other "ports UPGRADE" utilities to take care of your suggestions. Indeed, I have been developing such utility myself. If you want to try, I can give out for testing. There are 2 known issues with my tool, yet: 1. no good way to run 'make config', yet, and 2. even if less LIB_DEPENDS are required due to less selected OPTIONS, my tool does not fully eliminate these dependencies. Hiro _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"