On 04/12/2012 10:24 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: > Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> On 04/11/2012 09:27 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> Surprised by parallel build failures, >>> >> Oops *blush* I must admit that, while I usually run the testsuite with >> a high degree of parallelism, I also usually run the build proper with >> a simple "make all", because that is so fast anyway. So I ended up >> releasing the beta tarball without having truly tried a fully parallel >> build -- how foolish. Do you think this issue warrants another beta >> release? >> >>> I tracked them down: >>> >>> From 3fcf1fe611140eb6677d5893719bec1d96f106db Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Jim Meyering <meyer...@redhat.com> >>> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:25:48 +0200 >>> Subject: [PATCH] avoid parallel build failures >>> >> Minor tiny nit (feel free to ignore it): could you prepend the summary >> line with either "build:" or "fixup:", so that the guidelines in HACKING >> are followed? >> >>> A parallel build would fail when two concurrent sub-make processes >>> tried to build lib/Automake/Config.pm. The loser would complain that >>> grep: lib/Automake/Config.pm-t: No such file or directory >>> chmod: cannot access `lib/Automake/Config.pm-t': No such file or\ >>> directory >>> make[1]: *** [lib/Automake/Config.pm] Error 1 >>> * Makefile.am (update_mans): Don't build lib/Automake/Config.pm here. >>> Instead, depend on it from the two rules that use it: >>> ($(srcdir)/doc/aclocal-$(APIVERSION).1): Depend on it. >>> ($(srcdir)/doc/automake-$(APIVERSION).1): Likewise. >>> >> Oops, a distributed file cannot depend on a non-distributed one :-( >> This makes the patch unusable unfortunately. > > IMHO, there is only one way to work around this: don't distribute > those two files, i.e., generate them at build time. > That means either automake distributes the help2man script > (as coreutils does) or it adds help2man to its list of build-time > dependencies, as diffutils, cppi, libtool and others do. > Given automake's position in the system build-dependency graph > I have a slight preference to include help2man in the tarball. > That's seems the easiest and safest way out, especially considering that Automake already requires per anyway. Care to write a patch? Otherwise I should be able to get to it by this evening or tomorrow (as more serious issues with Vala support requires urgent attention now).
> The alternative is to try to guess at configure time whether > the "extra" dependencies are required[*]. If not, elide the > dependency and hope that the user does not run e.g., > "make maintainer-clean", which would leave them with no doc/*.1 > files and no reliable rules to rebuild them. > > [*] the dependencies would be required when not building from a > tarball or when doc/*.1 do not exist. > Sounds icky; I'd rather go with your other proposed solution. Thanks for tacking this, Stefano
