On Monday 08 October 2007 08:30:53 am Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:07:12PM +0000, Daniel Schepler wrote: > > On Monday 08 October 2007 07:49:09 am Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 10:53:05AM +0000, Daniel Schepler wrote: > > > > Inspired by today's new upload of dpkg, I'm going to try doing a > > > > rebuild of the archive using "dpkg-buildpackage -j3" and submit bugs > > > > as I find them. The bugs will be wishlist for now, and I'll assign > > > > usertag [EMAIL PROTECTED]:ftbfs-parallel to those bug reports > > > > for those interested in tracking the issue. > > > > > > Err please just don't. Many upstreams won't build properly with > > > parallel builds because their makefile just don't support it. Most > > > importantly, I believe that only the biggest packages benefit from a > > > parallel build, hence it should be an opt-in option that packagers may > > > use if their package support it, and if they believe it matters > > > (packages where build time is under the few minutes won't benefit from > > > it a lot e.g., as it's probable that most of the time is lost in the > > > configure and Debianization stages). > > > > Then isn't that something that should be fixed? With dual-core > > processors becoming more and more common, I would expect some users > > (myself included) to be in the habit of typing `make -j2' or > > `dpkg-buildpackage -j3' to take advantage, and then get annoyed if it > > doesn't work. > > Well, try to fix the ocaml build-system to work in parallel, if you > are able to do it, I'll gladly fix the rest of Debian makefiles :P
OK, I'll look into that when I get some free time. > > Especially when the easy work-around, if you don't want to bother adding > > the proper dependencies to the make targets, is just to add > > ".NOPARALLEL:" somewhere in the Makefile. > > This is a GNU extension. So is -j, I think. It shouldn't break anything if the system make doesn't recognize it. > > Anyway, I'm aware a lot of packages will probably break at the moment, > > which is why I'm using wishlist. > > I still believe that you should not file such bugs, I still fail to > see how it improves debian, as if we really need to build more packages > at the same time, we could run many sbuild instances on the same > machine. What about the case of someone wanting to debug a large package that hasn't "opted in" under your model? Then either I have to try calling dpkg-buildpackage with -j and run the risk that it might silently break somehow, or else put up with a longer build time. Also, adding the -j flag to dpkg-buildpackage IMHO creates the expectation that it should work on most packages. Are you going to file a bug on dpkg-dev asking for that to be removed? -- Daniel Schepler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
