portmaster comments

[Matthias Andree]

Am 14.03.2011 01:45, schrieb Doug Barton:
> On 3/13/2011 5:35 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> I'd like to raise a couple of nits with portmaster (primarily a wish
>> for more configurability):
>>
>> 1) In v3.0, you added code to nice(1) all make(1) invocations. In some
>> cases, the default niceness does not suit me (in particular, I'd often
>> prefer '0' to '10'). Would it be possible to add an option to control
>> the priority?
>>
>> 2) In v3.6, you added a "find $WRKDIRPREFIX ..." to the cleanup. For
>> various reasons, I have _lots_ of unrelated stuff under that tree and
>> so the find(1) takes an unacceptably long time to run. It would be
>> nice to restrict that search to $WRKDIRPREFIX${.CURDIR} and have an
>> option to disable it completely.
>
> Neither is likely to happen. :) I may however remove 1, it didn't really
> help much, if at all. As for 2, my suggestion is to have a WRKDIRPREFIX
> for development stuff, and a different one for portmaster. It's pretty
> easy to do with a make.conf knob searching for whether UPGRADE_TOOL is
> set to "portmaster." I have such a thing which I can send you if you
> really need me to, but I'm not booted into FreeBSD right now so I don't
> have it close to hand.
>
> BTW, the reason I'm not amenable to your suggestion in 2 is that only a
> few developer-types actually care about this, and that doesn't justify
> the code complexity. Just be thankful I didn't go with my first
> instinct, which was to 'rm -rf $WRKDIRPREFIX' :)

Hi Doug,

as to the 2nd issue:

What's the issue with $WRKDIRPREFIX${.CURDIR}? Or possibly, if you need 
wider coverage, $WRKDIRPREFIX$PORTSDIR?  The latter is, however, harmful 
if multiple processes run in parallel, but I haven't checked lately if 
portmaster sets locks to avoid that situation.

Best

-- 
Matthias Andree
ports committer