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

[John Marino]

On 10/4/2016 09:27, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> 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.

Correction: In your opinion despite the presence of evidence to the 
contrary, it "works" fine.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

John





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus