svn commit: r422981 - in head/dns: bind9-devel bind910 bind911 bind99

[Mathieu Arnold]

Le 04/10/2016 à 16:22, John Marino a écrit :
> On 10/4/2016 09:18, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>> Le 04/10/2016 à 16:16, John Marino a écrit :
>>> On 10/4/2016 09:13, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>>>> Le 04/10/2016 à 16:04, John Marino a écrit :
>>>>> We build under a very heavy load which flushes out marginally unsafe
>>>>> ports.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so make(1) from dragonfly has the same bug make(1) from FreeBSD 9
>>>> has, feel free to fix it in dragonfly's port tree.
>>>
>>> master has bmake 20160818 on it (for last 5 weeks)
>>> Release 4.6 has bmake 20141111.
>>> Do you know if make bug only applies to master?
>>
>> I have no idea.  I was told the problem was with make(1) on FreeBSD 9,
>> which seemed to be right, as it does not fail at all on FreeBSD 10/11
>> with -j 2-10.
>
> The -j number is not the only factor here.  I've seen ports pass under
> very high -j numbers but start failing when the server gets loaded.
>
> DragonFly has the lastest bmake, modern binutils, modern gcc and it
> doesn't have fmake (what freebsd 9 uses).
>
> Why is it so critical to classify bind910 as jobs safe when there
> clearly is a question about it?  Let's not immediately assume DF is at
> fault here.  As I mentioned before, it could easily be the build tests
> you're doing aren't sufficient to flush this out.  It *was* marked
> UNSAFE before, obviously with good reason.  (albeit undocumented)

It works just fine on all supported FreeBSD versions as it is, like I
said, feel free to change it in dragonfly's ports tree.


-- 
Mathieu Arnold


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-all/attachments/20161004/26263459/attachment.sig>