On Feb 2, 2008, at 19:25, Rainer Müller wrote:
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Changes in base should not break existing ports, if at all
possible. Ports may fail with this option enabled. Therefore it's
opt-in on a port-by-port basis.
So every maintainer has to check for himself if his/her ports built
fine with parallel building enabled? With this approach it will
last a long time until we get real benefits of parallel building.
Although many users already own multi-core Macs and want to have
faster builds...
I don't think that many ports will break with this. As Yves said, 5
out of 150 failed for him. Tagging 5 ports is easier than tagging 150.
And it would be not a real problem if a port fails, there is always
the workaround to disable this option in macports.conf again until
the Portfile for a failing port is modified accordingly.
There was a long thread on this topic leading up to the current
implementation; please review:
http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/2007-October/
006479.html
In particular Markus's comment here seems to exemplify why it's the
way it is:
http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/2007-October/
006601.html
"The point is that ports that are not given 110% love (e.g.
unmaintained ones, busy maintainers) will simply break [if parallel
builds are enabled by default] probably in spectacular non-
deterministic ways."
We have enough other problems with ports right now. Let's not make
more, especially spectacular non-deterministic ones, by enabling
parallel builds by default.
_______________________________________________
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
