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?= `${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
> > > > > > > > _MAKE_JOBS= -j${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER}
> > > > > > > > -.else
> > > > > > > > -_MAKE_JOBS= -j`${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
> > > > > > > > -.endif
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wouldn't that mean an evaluation of the backtick command in
> > > > > > > every make(1) invocation? That would be highly undesirable.
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe that is the case.
> > > >
> > > > Here is what I get with the patch applied (MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER not
> > > > defined): /usr/ports/editors/openoffice.org-3# make -V
> > > > MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER -V _MAKE_JOBS `/sbin/sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus`
> > > > -j`/sbin/sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus`
> > > >
> > > > Wouldn't this indicate that the backtick command is not being
> > > > evaluated?
> > >
> > > Seems correct. But explain again, why you need this change?
> >
> > Not all ports use make but are concurrent capable and require different
> > arguments to be passed which is why I needed to expose MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER
> > (since it is just a number) and why _MAKE_JOBS was not an option.
>
> Ok, how about doing a dirty hack and using ${_MAKE_JOBS:C/-j//} ?
> Then we wouldn't have to modify bsd.port.mk ..That will work in the ooo3 case however in the ooo2 case it does condition on its value (so at the very least the code will need to be shifted to the pre section of the Makefile). On an aside, if quite a few ports all require this 'hack' (and in the ooo2 case a further hack) shouldn't it be in a central location? [I have no idea on the number though]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
