MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE (some more ports)

[Pav Lucistnik]

David Naylor píše v ne 24. 05. 2009 v 20:07 +0200:
> On Sunday 24 May 2009 18:27:57 Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> > Ion-Mihai Tetcu píše v ne 24. 05. 2009 v 19:01 +0300:
> > > On Sun, 24 May 2009 16:10:23 +0200
> > >
> > > Pav Lucistnik <pav at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > > > Ion-Mihai Tetcu píše v so 23. 05. 2009 v 13:51 +0300:
> > > > > > > - MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER defaults (but user defined) to number of
> > > > > > > cores
> > > > >
> > > > > This part looks OK, I wonder if there's any reason t ain't like this
> > > > > now; Pav?
> > > > > -.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER)
> > > > > +MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER?=	`${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
> > > > >  _MAKE_JOBS=		-j${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER}
> > > > > -.else
> > > > > -_MAKE_JOBS=		-j`${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
> > > > > -.endif
> > > >
> > > > Wouldn't that mean an evaluation of the backtick command in every
> > > > make(1) invocation? That would be highly undesirable.
> 
> I don't believe that is the case.  
> 
> Here is what I get with the patch applied (MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER not defined):
> /usr/ports/editors/openoffice.org-3# make -V MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER -V _MAKE_JOBS
> `/sbin/sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus`
> -j`/sbin/sysctl -n kern.smp.cpus`
> 
> Wouldn't this indicate that the backtick command is not being evaluated?

Seems correct. But explain again, why you need this change? You cannot
use it to evaluate single/multi-processor machine in Makefile, as it's
not expanded there either.

And why should anything fail with -j1 but work with -j4? That is totally
unexpected.

-- 
Pav Lucistnik <pav at oook.cz>
              <pav at FreeBSD.org>
It whines, glows and fades...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Toto je =?UTF-8?Q?digit=C3=A1ln=C4=9B?=
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_podepsan=E1?= =?UTF-8?Q?_=C4=8D=C3=A1st?=
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_zpr=E1vy?=
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20090524/cb7574a5/attachment.pgp