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 code (since it is defined in the > > post section, but the whole code could always be moved to the pre > > section). > > I'm hesitant to modify bsd.port.mk for benefit of just four ports. > Also, I think having MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER set to 1 when the feature is in > fact disable, is counter-intuitive (because -j1 is very different to no > -j at all).
I understand, I see the light. By the way it is two ports requiring the below. What about the change that exposes MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER when MAKE_JOBS_SAFE or FORCE_MAKE_JOBS are defined (to avoid using ${_MAKE_JOBS:C/-j//}, not sure what the policy is of ports using *.mk internals). I think that is a reasonable change??? > So how about just having > > .if defined(DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS) > MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER= 1 > .else +.if !defined(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER) > MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER!= echo `${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus` +.endif > .endif > > in ooo makefile? This will work in OOo2*, the OOo3 will also need a check for DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS since they rely on MKAE_JOBS_NUMBER always being set (just the way they do things). Will fix and send another patch.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.