libxul build hit the roof!

Da Rock freebsd-ports at
Fri Dec 31 05:42:23 UTC 2010

On 12/31/10 02:47, jhell wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On 12/29/2010 18:04, Da Rock wrote:
>> I got it worked out in the end, but it still took 2G+ memory to build;
>> so my suggestion is a warning to EU in the make process that this could
>> take a lot of memory to build, and some suggestions as to how to prevent
>> or workaround the problem so they don't go whining on the list about it
>> being broken.
> Turning off OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS for 'libxul, firefox*&  thunderbird*' ports
> would have stopped all this swapping from happening.
> Is there a specific reason why you changed it from its defaults ? is
> there really anything to gain ? in respect to 'libxul'...
I see your point and I'll raise you a does it matter? There are sites 
and howto's on improving performance overall, especially regarding the 
revival of older machines. The recommendation on a lot of these is to 
put CFLAGS+= -O -pipe in the make.conf. If they already have low memory, 
then they'll be up the creek won't they? And the updates won't happen so 
they'll simply be broken and unsure of why.

I'd say a simple note to say whats up is definitely in order, to prevent 
a lot of traffic. I don't believe thats too hard to do, given jdk16 and 
OOO have messages reflecting HDD space. I only noticed the issue because 
I watched it happen- given the little relevance that most (including 
yourself) put on it, it would easily be overlooked unless a simple 
solution was presented. The only message you get from say portupgrade is 
new compiler error, most would then put it in the too hard basket.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list