On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 05:10:47PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote: > Peter Pentchev píše v pá 13. 04. 2007 v 18:06 +0300: > > > > > > I was thinking about having it embedded in every port's Makefile > > > directly, instead. Something like > > > > > > USE_MAKE_JOBS= 2 > > > > IMHO, hardcoding the number of jobs in the port's Makefile would not > > be the best approach. I think a port should only flag whether it > > supports parallel building at all or not - and leave the number of jobs > > to either the ports framework or the administrator's choice. > > That was just an example. You can do > > USE_MAKE_JOBS= yes > > for autoscaling perfectly well. For details, see the patch I linked.
The patch gives no reason for such hardcoding, it just implements it. How many ports exist that can fail with N+1 jobs yet cannot break with N jobs (for N > 1)? Yeti -- http://gwyddion.net/ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
