Possibly unbuildable ports reminder
Dear porters, This is just a reminder to please periodically check the list of unbuildable ports at http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/ . A list by MAINTAINER is http://people.freebsd.org/~fenner/errorlogs/ so you can easily check the status of ports that you maintain. In addition, the list of ports with no MAINTAINER with build problems is http://people.freebsd.org/~fenner/errorlogs/po...@freebsd.org.html Since no one is responsible for these ports, the problem won't get fixed unless someone on this list takes the initiative. Thanks for your help! Bill annoying port email Fenner ___ 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
Re: MAKE_JOBS and openjdk6
On Friday 20 August 2010 17:12:42 Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous swel...@gmail.com writes:
David Naylor naylor.b.da...@gmail.com writes:
%%
Index: java/openjdk6/Makefile
@@ -266,3 +267,6 @@ post-install:
@${CAT} ${PKGMESSAGE}
.include bsd.port.post.mk
+
+# XXX: use `?=' in bsd.port.mk
+_MAKE_JOBS=
%%
Yes, I prefer this approach. See attached for the patch that does this.
I will file a PR about this shortly.
I've filed ports/148754 about defining empty _MAKE_JOBS so it's not
forgotten.
That PR was recently committed. So, you can try to resurrect ports/148753.
I've had a look at openjdk6 and it appears it really is MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE.
There are portions of it that are able to use make jobs and those are compiled
using HOTSPOT_BUILD_JOBS.
I suggest that either:
- openjdk stops using HOTSPOT_BUILD_JOBS and declares itself unsafe, or
- declare itself make jobs safe and use HOTSPOT_BUILD_JOBS for those parts
that can use it
Attached is a patch that achieves the latter suggestion.
The problem with the port as it stands now is that it breaks with
FORCE_MAKE_JOBS, does not honour MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER and that it will consume a
lot of resources when building, more so than what is reasonably expected.
Simply declaring the port make jobs unsafe does not fix the resource
consumption that some programs/scripts may take into account.
Taking the first option will result in slower build times when the port is able
to build faster.
Taking the second option results in overriding a 'private' variable. There is
precedent in ports for using that 'private' variable. With the recently
committed changes using the 'private' variable is less intrusive.
I recommend the second option. It allows the port to build as fast as
possible, to honour MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER and does not employ any hacks.
Regards
diff -ur /usr/ports/java/openjdk6/Makefile openjdk6/Makefile
--- /usr/ports/java/openjdk6/Makefile 2010-07-15 22:29:26.0 +0200
+++ openjdk6/Makefile 2010-07-15 22:33:45.0 +0200
@@ -48,6 +48,7 @@
# java extracts directly to the cwd
WRKSRC= ${WRKDIR}
+MAKE_JOBS_SAFE= yes
USE_GMAKE= yes
USE_MOTIF= yes
@@ -145,8 +146,10 @@
USE_DISPLAY= yes
.endif
-BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER!= ${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus
-MAKE_ENV+= HOTSPOT_BUILD_JOBS=${BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER}
+.if !defined(DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS)
+MAKE_ENV+= HOTSPOT_BUILD_JOBS=${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER}
+_MAKE_JOBS=
+.endif
COPYDIRS= \
hotspot/src/os/linux/launcher \
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: security/clamav: Segmentation fault when running clamav in a 32-bit jail on a 64-bit host
On 8/27/10 3:04 PM, Glen Barber wrote: Hello Kostik, On 8/27/10 2:58 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote: Of course. The new backtrace is here: http://gist.github.com/553734 I suspect that this was fixed in r210796/HEAD and r211138/RELENG_8. I will check this out on a test machine. Thanks. Hi Kostik, That was it. Thanks. -- Glen Barber ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: MAKE_JOBS and openjdk6
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 02:28:02PM +0200, David Naylor wrote:
On Friday 20 August 2010 17:12:42 Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous swel...@gmail.com writes:
David Naylor naylor.b.da...@gmail.com writes:
%%
Index: java/openjdk6/Makefile
@@ -266,3 +267,6 @@ post-install:
@${CAT} ${PKGMESSAGE}
.include bsd.port.post.mk
+
+# XXX: use `?=' in bsd.port.mk
+_MAKE_JOBS=
%%
Yes, I prefer this approach. See attached for the patch that does this.
I will file a PR about this shortly.
I've filed ports/148754 about defining empty _MAKE_JOBS so it's not
forgotten.
That PR was recently committed. So, you can try to resurrect ports/148753.
I've had a look at openjdk6 and it appears it really is MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE.
There are portions of it that are able to use make jobs and those are
compiled
using HOTSPOT_BUILD_JOBS.
I suggest that either:
- openjdk stops using HOTSPOT_BUILD_JOBS and declares itself unsafe, or
It has already declared itself unsafe.
- declare itself make jobs safe and use HOTSPOT_BUILD_JOBS for those parts
that can use it
Attached is a patch that achieves the latter suggestion.
The problem with the port as it stands now is that it breaks with
FORCE_MAKE_JOBS, does not honour MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER and that it will consume a
lot of resources when building, more so than what is reasonably expected.
Simply declaring the port make jobs unsafe does not fix the resource
consumption that some programs/scripts may take into account.
Taking the first option will result in slower build times when the port is
able
to build faster.
Taking the second option results in overriding a 'private' variable. There
is
precedent in ports for using that 'private' variable. With the recently
committed changes using the 'private' variable is less intrusive.
I recommend the second option. It allows the port to build as fast as
possible, to honour MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER and does not employ any hacks.
I would argue that overriding a private variable is a hack (other ports
doing it doesn't make it not a hack).
Alternative patch attached which seems to achieve the same result from
my perspective without overriding _MAKE_JOBS.
diff -ur /usr/ports/java/openjdk6/Makefile openjdk6/Makefile
--- /usr/ports/java/openjdk6/Makefile 2010-07-15 22:29:26.0 +0200
+++ openjdk6/Makefile 2010-07-15 22:33:45.0 +0200
@@ -48,6 +48,7 @@
# java extracts directly to the cwd
WRKSRC= ${WRKDIR}
+MAKE_JOBS_SAFE= yes
USE_GMAKE= yes
USE_MOTIF= yes
@@ -145,8 +146,10 @@
USE_DISPLAY= yes
.endif
-BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER!= ${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus
-MAKE_ENV+= HOTSPOT_BUILD_JOBS=${BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER}
+.if !defined(DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS)
+MAKE_ENV+= HOTSPOT_BUILD_JOBS=${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER}
+_MAKE_JOBS=
+.endif
COPYDIRS=\
hotspot/src/os/linux/launcher \
--
Greg Lewis Email : gle...@eyesbeyond.com
Eyes Beyond Web : http://www.eyesbeyond.com
Information Technology FreeBSD : gle...@freebsd.org
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /var/fcvs/ports/java/openjdk6/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.28
diff -u -r1.28 Makefile
--- Makefile 15 Aug 2010 05:23:06 - 1.28
+++ Makefile 28 Aug 2010 18:27:44 -
@@ -147,8 +147,14 @@
USE_DISPLAY= yes
.endif
-BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER!= ${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus
+.if !defined(DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS)
+.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER)
+BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER= ${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER}
+.else
+BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER= `${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
+.endif
MAKE_ENV+= HOTSPOT_BUILD_JOBS=${BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER}
+.endif
COPYDIRS= \
hotspot/src/os/linux/launcher \
___
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
Re: MAKE_JOBS and openjdk6
Greg Lewis gle...@eyesbeyond.com writes:
I would argue that overriding a private variable is a hack (other ports
doing it doesn't make it not a hack).
You could've spoke up in ports/148754 about your concern in order for
portmgr@ to notice. The PR strived to be less intrusive than divorcing
build jobs from make jobs. Besides, I think adding more clutter to
Makefiles defeats purpose of having stuff in bsd.port.mk.
Alternative patch attached which seems to achieve the same result from
my perspective without overriding _MAKE_JOBS.
Hardcoding kern.smp.cpus and ignoring MAKE_JOBS_SAFE/UNSAFE doesn't seem
like a less hacky solution. I'd argue that it's more confusing because
MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE is not equal to DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS.
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /var/fcvs/ports/java/openjdk6/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.28
diff -u -r1.28 Makefile
--- Makefile 15 Aug 2010 05:23:06 - 1.28
+++ Makefile 28 Aug 2010 18:27:44 -
@@ -147,8 +147,14 @@
USE_DISPLAY= yes
.endif
-BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER!= ${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus
+.if !defined(DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS)
+.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER)
+BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER= ${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER}
+.else
+BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER= `${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
+.endif
MAKE_ENV+= HOTSPOT_BUILD_JOBS=${BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER}
+.endif
COPYDIRS=\
hotspot/src/os/linux/launcher \
___
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
Re: MAKE_JOBS and openjdk6
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:44:39AM +0400, Anonymous wrote:
Greg Lewis gle...@eyesbeyond.com writes:
I would argue that overriding a private variable is a hack (other ports
doing it doesn't make it not a hack).
You could've spoke up in ports/148754 about your concern in order for
portmgr@ to notice. The PR strived to be less intrusive than divorcing
build jobs from make jobs. Besides, I think adding more clutter to
Makefiles defeats purpose of having stuff in bsd.port.mk.
In that case, whichever way you cut it, we're deliberately trying to
circumvent what is in bsd.port.mk.
Alternative patch attached which seems to achieve the same result from
my perspective without overriding _MAKE_JOBS.
Hardcoding kern.smp.cpus and ignoring MAKE_JOBS_SAFE/UNSAFE doesn't seem
like a less hacky solution. I'd argue that it's more confusing because
MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE is not equal to DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS.
The patch I attached (a) does not ignore MAKE_JOBS_{SAFE,UNSAFE} and (b)
the first patch similarly uses DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS.
The first patch does the following:
1. Sets MAKE_JOBS_SAFE _erroneously_ (the port is _not_ MAKE_JOBS_SAFE)
purely so it can force the setting of MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER.
2. Overrides passing of -j to the make invocation by fiddling the private
variable _MAKE_JOBS, which it has to do because of (1).
The one I just provided
1. Leaves the port correctly marked as MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE and doesn't mess
with any private variables.
2. Respects MAKE_JOB_NUMBER if it is set and otherwise uses the sysctl
kern.smp.cpus, the latter being what the port _already_ does.
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /var/fcvs/ports/java/openjdk6/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.28
diff -u -r1.28 Makefile
--- Makefile15 Aug 2010 05:23:06 - 1.28
+++ Makefile28 Aug 2010 18:27:44 -
@@ -147,8 +147,14 @@
USE_DISPLAY= yes
.endif
-BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER!=${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus
+.if !defined(DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS)
+.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER)
+BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER= ${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER}
+.else
+BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER= `${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
+.endif
MAKE_ENV+= HOTSPOT_BUILD_JOBS=${BUILD_JOBS_NUMBER}
+.endif
COPYDIRS= \
hotspot/src/os/linux/launcher \
--
Greg Lewis Email : gle...@eyesbeyond.com
Eyes Beyond Web : http://www.eyesbeyond.com
Information Technology FreeBSD : gle...@freebsd.org
___
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
