cvs commit: ports/archivers/deb2targz Makefile
ports/archivers/ecm Makefile ports/archivers/gzrecover
Makefile ports/archivers/mar Makefile ports/archivers/ppmd
Makefile ports/archivers/tardy Makefile ports/archivers/unlzx
Makefile ports/archivers/unmass ...
Alexey Dokuchaev
danfe at FreeBSD.org
Fri Mar 27 07:36:31 PDT 2009
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 04:43:21PM +0300, Max Brazhnikov wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:53:36 +0000 (UTC), Emanuel Haupt wrote:
> > Mark MAKE_JOBS_SAFE
> >
> > Revision Changes Path
> > 1.6 +1 -0 ports/archivers/deb2targz/Makefile
>
> Is there reason for marking ports, which do not require build target at all?
I'm actually wondering why are we are not marking ~400 "not safe"
ports instead of marking ~20k-400 others as "safe". I realize that the
build cluster cannot catch every implication of parallel builds, but
that huge amount of gratuitous commits worries me. One of the really
cool things about our port infrastructure is ability to hide lots of the
build process under simple declarative rules, letting the porter specify
"what" they want instead of exactly "how". To me, MAKE_JOBS_SAFE knob
does not fit nicely in this paradigm.
./danfe
More information about the cvs-all
mailing list