On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:00:34 +0200 >> Alex Schuster <wo...@wonkology.org> wrote: >> >> > Michael Mol writes: >> > >> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk >> > > <mailto:n...@digimed.co.uk>> wrote: >> > >> > > Instead we get, try USE="-*" :P >> > > >> > > "Try MAKEOPTS='-j1'" >> > >> > Which in fact often helps... especially for me, I am using >> > MAKEOPTS="-j --load=4", and I often experience build problems that >> > are not reproducible with a fixed number of jobs, regardless how >> > large. >> >> Yes indeed, and that one is good advice. >> >> Not every Makefile out there is safe for -j > 1, so running it as one >> job is valid debugging. It's the correct thing to do with weird build >> failures as it tests if a specific condition is true or not. >> > > Yeah, except I've already gone that route, or otherwise ruled it out, before > I ask. That's why it's grating. (Even more grating when I have to spend the > time building a package again, just to convince someone that, no, it's not > MAKEOPTS that's the problem.) > > It's like "Have you tried turning it off and back on again". > <snip>
And yet, for many who're in the daily job of working on other people's systems, notably on-site, the first recommendation for many problems is simply 'turn it off and back on again' because it does the trick often enough to be worth it (and can avoid going out to the system around 50% of the time, depending on the environment). Also, if you've already gone that route, and ruled that out as a resolution, stating as much generally tends to sidestep the initial few steps. -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy
