Re: the nature of pkgsrc support for OS versions (release vs stable)

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 01:16:17PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost> writes:
> 
> >> 2) This MAKE_JOBS=1 forcing is not understandable since it is already
> >> MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=no on NetBSD.  Please file a PR about this.  I would like
> >> to have a clear understanding on whether this MAKE_JOBS=1 is needed for
> >> 9.0_RELEASE or also 9.0_STABLE.   (I wonder if the MAKE_JOBS_SAFE needs
> >> to be someplace else in the Makefile.)
> >
> > I fear I can't fill a usefull PR for this. we can't run such tests on pkgbuild,
> > and the test box where I could check for this has "only" 3Gb ram, so
> > rust won't build with MAKE_JOBS > 1 anyway.
> 
> I am not asking you to debug this.  You are the one observing the
> problem so I am merely asking you to create a PR saying what happened in
> your environment, and describing your workaround.  It may well be that
> it never gets fixed, but I am really uncomfortable with having
> workarounds for problems that are not in the PR database.  So a PR is
> useful, even if you don't see it as leading to a fix.
> 
> (I also don't follow why, if you need to have MAKE_JOBS=1 on that box
> because of RAM (fair eoough), that you needed to have this workaround
> since it would have been avoided.)

No, I did force MAKE_JOBS=1 on pkgbuild, and on the next run I got a rust
package. But I don't know if it's by luck or if MAKE_JOBS=1 makes it build
reliably, of if I could get it to build with MAKE_JOBS>1 too.
and I won' test this on pkgbuild.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--