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

[John Marino]

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)

John




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