MAKE_JOBS and openjdk6

Anonymous swell.k at gmail.com
Fri Jun 25 22:15:39 UTC 2010


David Naylor <naylor.b.david at gmail.com> writes:

> On Friday 25 June 2010 18:08:22 David Naylor wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> java/openjdk6 breaks with FORCE_MAKE_JOBS (it implements its own think). 
>> The attached patch fixes openjdk6, marks it as MAKE_JOBS_SAFE and makes it
>> respect MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> P.S. I'm off list
>
> Oops.  My hack didn't work.  
>
> With MAKE_JOBS_SAFE _MAKE_JOBS is included but that evaluated to -jN and this 
> is choking the Makefile.  Is there an easier way to exclude _MAKE_JOBS?  
> Perhaps set _MAKE_JOBS conditionally in bsd.ports.mk and a port can then do 
> _MAKE_JOBS=""

Smth like

%%
Index: Mk/bsd.port.mk
@@ -2292,7 +2292,7 @@ _MAKE_JOBS=		#
 .else
 .if defined(MAKE_JOBS_SAFE) || defined(FORCE_MAKE_JOBS)
 MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER?=	`${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus`
-_MAKE_JOBS=		-j${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER}
+_MAKE_JOBS?=		-j${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER}
 .if defined(FORCE_MAKE_JOBS) && !defined(MAKE_JOBS_SAFE)
 BUILD_FAIL_MESSAGE+=	"You have chosen to use multiple make jobs (parallelization) for all ports.  This port was not tested for this setting.  Please remove FORCE_MAKE_JOBS and retry the build before reporting the failure to the maintainer."
 .endif
%%

>
> The attached patch fixes the above problem without touching bsd.ports.mk.
>

You can as well define empty _MAKE_JOBS *after* <bsd.port.post.mk>.
At least it wouldn't be as ugly as redefining do-build target.

%%
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=
%%

> Regards


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list