On 28 December 2012 15:24, Greg Lewis <gle...@eyesbeyond.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 07:27:22PM -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: >> On 21 December 2012 19:16, David Demelier <demelier.da...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Yes, I wanted to answser, but the man says that MAKE_JOBS are disabled by >> > default, I tried to build with MAKE_JOBS=1 and it works, the problem did >> > appear when MAKE_JOBS=6 was set. Can you reproduce the issue? >> >> I want to mark this MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE=yes and remove the current hack >> Any objection from java@ ? >> >> > I had MAKE_JOBS=6 in my /etc/make.conf instead of MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER though >> >> Exactly. MAKE_JOBS is not user-settable. MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER is. IMHO >> MAKE_JOBS should start with an _. > > I think that's right. I have no objection. I think whats in openjdk7 > is closer to what it should be.
What is in openjdk7 seems bogus and it isn't clear why it is there: MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE= yes is defined implying that MAKE_JOBS should always be 1 (and -j never set) but it does some weird things with the global variables MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER and DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS. Can the generic handling in b.p.m not work? IMHO MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=yes should be defined and either b.p.m or b.java.m should be handling the special build code. -- Eitan Adler _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"