Re: locks and FLAVORs

On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 10:59:59PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2020/03/05 23:06, Marc Espie wrote:
> > > Can we do this?
> > >
> > > Index: bsd.port.mk
> > > ===================================================================
> > > RCS file: /cvs/ports/infrastructure/mk/bsd.port.mk,v
> > > retrieving revision 1.1520
> > > diff -u -p -r1.1520 bsd.port.mk
> > > --- bsd.port.mk 26 Feb 2020 15:34:48 -0000 1.1520
> > > +++ bsd.port.mk 5 Mar 2020 21:29:25 -0000
> > > @@ -1727,11 +1727,7 @@ _UNLOCK = echo "Unlocking $$lock from $@
> > > _LOCK = ${LOCK_CMD} ${LOCKDIR_MODE} ${LOCKDIR}/$$lock.lock ${BUILD_PKGPATH}
> > > _UNLOCK = ${UNLOCK_CMD} ${LOCKDIR}/$$lock.lock
> > > . endif
> > > -. if ${SEPARATE_BUILD:L:Mflavored}
> > > _LOCKNAME = ${FULLPKGNAME}
> > > -. else
> > > -_LOCKNAME = ${PKGNAME}
> > > -. endif
> > >
> > > . for _i in ${_LOCKNAME}
> > > . if empty(_LOCKS_HELD:M${_i})
> >
> > The lock name change for SEPARATE_BUILD was an experiment for manual build,
> > it can definitely go away.
>
> Ignoring DPB's own locking - would you be OK with me changing this to
> use FULLPKGNAME i.e. the diff above? or do you want to keep it using
> PKGNAME? (Even if it's just for manual builds it's still helpful, if I'm
> updating something like vim I can then run builds for all flavours at
> once).

Oh yes, I'm definitely okay with that.