Re: MAKE_JOBS.devel/cmake ineffective

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 09:02:56PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
 > A nit: I would think that the PKG_MAKE_JOBS or PKG_BUILD_JOBS variable
 > would apply equally to the install phase, and might also apply to core
 > usage in pigz in package creation, and some future parallelization of
 > wrapper generation and patching.
 > 
 > I see MAKE as sort of a phrase for the interface and that other build
 > systems are basically implementing that interface.  Given that we have
 > MAKE_JOBS, I'd just as soon stick with the language.

That's a reasonable argument. (Also, parallelizing the configure phase
isn't feasible but seems highly desirable.)

On the other hand, each phase might need its own JOBS_SAFE logic :-|

But I suppose we shouldn't try to burn that bridge before we reach it,
and also one shouldn't change things unless it's clearly better than
not changing them, so probably best to stay put.

Plus the point of the tool.mk part is to keep the number of consumers
of this variable down to a minimum, so later changes are not going to
become especially more difficult.

 > Overall I did not have any negative reactions to your proposals.

:-)

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost