On 04-08-2014 21:22, Armin K. wrote: > On 08/05/2014 01:38 AM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >> On 04-08-2014 18:15, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> Armin K. wrote: >>>> On 08/04/2014 09:46 PM, William Harrington wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 4, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Armin K. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Shouldn't "This package doesn't support parallel builds." suffice like >>>>>> we have in several others? >> >> No it does not. This package *does* support multiple jobs ou parallel >> build, whatever is the preference of the reader. Further below, I >> explain again. >> >>>>> >>>>> There are most likely other pages with this type of issue. >> >> Please, point them so we can fix. When point out, if you refer to a >> particular editor, I am sure he will take it or, if he cannot, at least >> he will ask somebody else's help. If you do not refer to a particular >> editor, then there will be a delay until one editor decides to take it. >> >>>> "This package does not support using more than one make job at build >>>> time." ... Not everyone is really familiar with this terminology. >>> >>> I don't see a problem with the phrase 'parallel build'. Technically I >>> suppose it really should be something like "This package does not >>> support Gnu make's capability to run parallel jobs (threads of >>> execution).", but that seems a bit cumbersome when what we have now: >>> >>> This package does not support parallel build. >>> >> >> I will repeat the original reply, so I can clarify, because it seems >> that the context has been missed. >> >> On 04-08-2014 16:30, Armin K. wrote: >>>> Modified: trunk/BOOK/lxde/desktop/menu-cache.xml >>>> >> ============================================================================== >>>> --- trunk/BOOK/lxde/desktop/menu-cache.xml Mon Aug 4 07:01:16 2014 >> (r13827) >>>> +++ trunk/BOOK/lxde/desktop/menu-cache.xml Mon Aug 4 07:16:12 2014 >> (r13828) >>>> @@ -121,6 +121,12 @@ >>>> <xi:include xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"; >>>> href="../../xincludes/gtk-doc-rebuild.xml"/> >> >> In the text, this becomes: >> >> >> "--enable-gtk-doc: Use this parameter if GTK-Doc is installed and you >> wish to rebuild and install the API documentation." >> >> Now, I think that the note below becomes clear: >> >>>> >>>> + <note> >>>> + <para>With this switch, parallel build is not supported. Use >>>> + <command>make -j1</command> if you have MAKEFLAGS set to value >> larger >>>> + than unity.</para> >>>> + </note> >>>> + >>>> </sect2> >>>> >>> >>> Can we have simpler and more clearer explanations? I don't understand >>> half of this sentence (it doesn't make sense in English, at least not to >>> me). >> >> You don't understand, because the context is missing, you had only the >> xinclude. >> >> If you use "--enable-gtk-doc", then the problem appears. It is this part >> of the Makefile that has a problem. >> > > Okay, thanks for the explanation, now it makes more sense. But I still > don't understand the word "unity" and how it fits in there. > > To avoid further confusion, how about "The package doesn't support > parallel builds (or any terminology that gets out of this discussion) if > gtk-doc building is enabled." > >>> I guess this is what Simon was refering to simple explanations in >>> order not to have an explanation for explanation. >> >> I have no idea how to fix something that is expressed in so generic terms. >> >> CONCLUSION: >> >> 1. The place of a note or comment should be near the switch, not in the >> beginning of the package. The "Revision: 13832" in systemd is wrong for >> two reasons: (a) it is misplaced in the page and (b) the content is not >> valid. >> > > I'll revert it. > >> 2. I will delete the part: "Use >>>> + <command>make -j1</command> if you have MAKEFLAGS set to a >> value larger >>>> + than unity." >> >> Will try to do it later tonight or tomorrow. >> > > Okay, seems reasonable, but consider the one I proposed.
I considered your proposal. Decided to do something in between yours and mine. Reasons: Previously, I used a note, instead of a simple comment in the same Command Explanation, because it was xinclude. I did not want to use a note. I may be wrong, but the xinclude is intrinsically wrong, because it states "Use this parameter", but tag it as "option". Also, it states "rebuild and install the API". This does not apply here, because there is no API docs in the source tree, only the option to build and then install. Thus, build, instead of rebuild is the appropriate word. Conclusion: I deleted the xinclude and inserted a new text which now includes the command about the failure if more than one job is used in parallel to build the package. I hope you agree with this solution, but I am willing to rediscuss it if you wish. So, temporarily (hope it is definitive) fixed at revision 13834. Now, I think we should either modify the xinclude, but that would need an inspection to the pages where it is used (if it is an option or parameter). -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
