On 10/11/10 07:05, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:29:34 +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote: >>> 1) if the user specifies max-cpus, do we want max-jobs to default to >>> max-cpus? Because that does make sense afaict. >> The buildsystem is a bit strange in this regard ;-) There are 2 levels >> of what is done in parallel - one on the level of directories, and one >> on what is done in the directory itself. Ie. if you did what you >> propose, you'd get max-cpus * max-jobs in the 'ideal' situation. Hmm... I understand what you're saying, but that actually seems not to be my experience. "cpus=4" would bring my machine (AthlonX3) to a standstill, while "cpus=3, jobs=3" results in an "always responsive" system ... Oh well ... I ought to document it at least, and then we'll see what happens.
> We might explain that a bit better in the configure help text. I always > forget which is the exquivalent to "make -j n". Perhaps in the brave gnu > (make) world, we can simplify that to one switch? > >>> 2) why is the system so keen on ice-cream? Is it because it's a java >>> technology? I note it's incompatible with distcc (which is what I've >>> got, and which isn't much use without a pc farm). >>> >>> I've noticed other people moaning about ice-cream so should we remove >>> all the "why haven't you got it?" stuff, or just disable it if distcc >>> is installed? > +1 for quiet down the icecream advertisment a bit, we should rather put > instructions for that in our wiki. If someone configured to use distcc, > we should not output icecream related stuff at all. So who comes up with > a patch :-)? > Looks like it's up to me then :-) Cheers, Wol _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice