[TEST] make -j patch [take 2]
Harti Brandt
harti at freebsd.org
Fri Nov 12 02:07:12 PST 2004
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
PK>In message <20041112090905.GD41844 at ip.net.ua>, Ruslan Ermilov writes:
PK>
PK>>But you don't give an opportunity to control this on a sub-make
PK>>level (that's what I ask for).
PK>
PK>Why would that be of any use ? If you run "make universe" the task
PK>at hand is to get "make universe" to complete. You should not care
PK>which partcular submake starts how many jobs when, you should only
PK>care that it works as efficient as possible.
A new make is not necessarily a sub-make in the sense as started by
$(MAKE). A make could also be started by, for example, an awk script or
whatever running from make and who's task has not directly to do with the
top make's task. Something like:
test: tool
tool -a -v
tool:
portinstall -v tool
I'm not sure whether automatically putting the make started by portinstall
into the same group of makes as the top make is what one wants in such
cases. One could, of course try to wipe out MAKE_JOBS_FIFO from
portinstall's environment, but that is rather cumbersome (something like
env -d would be really handy) and would require that environment variable
to be documented at least.
harti
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list