On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 09:14:21AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 5/23/2013 8:00 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 07:18:26AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: > >> On 5/23/2013 2:56 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > >>> FORCE_MAKE_JOBS is removed because it is the default. While here, I've > >>> moved empty(MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER) check higher, IMHO where it should belong, > >>> also saves a few lines. Reviews are welcome. > >> > >> Moving MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER is wrong, see r317639 > > > > Hmm, can you explain a bit more? Maybe I am missing something here, but > > as I read log for r317639: > > > > "[F]ix MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER not being set if none of DISABLE_MAKE_JOBS or > > MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE or MAKE_JOBS_SAFE or FORCE_MAKE_JOBS were set." > > > > Previously (without my patch) it could happen because of nested .if's. Now > > _MAKE_JOBS is set in both branches (true and false). [...] > > I see now. You removed this > > -.if defined(MAKE_JOBS_SAFE) || defined(FORCE_MAKE_JOBS) > > So it should be fine now.
Right. Just to make it clear (for everyone who is reading): previously we needed FORCE_MAKE_JOBS as it was not the default; now we don't need it and it was removed; thus making second .if check needless. Ergo, we can easily ensure that _MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER is always set now, without using the separate check for its emptiness (after the .if). ./danfe _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
