Excerpts from Raphael Hertzog's message of Mon Feb 28 15:47:14 +0100 2011: > tag 615848 + wontfix > thanks > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Michal Suchanek wrote: > > Of course, there are situations when limiting the number of processors > > is desirable (eg. to leave some processors for other tasks or to build > > broken packages which don't build in parallel) and for this the -j<n> > > option can be used. > > > > I am asking here only for a default <n> that makes more sense. > > I'm sorry this won't be done. Not all packages can safely be built with -j > and we don't want to change a default to something that will break an > unknown number of packages. >
That won't break any packages. Packages that don't build with -j >1 are broken to start with. This may at most expose the bugs which is only a good thing. If the package is broken and hard to fix otherwise the flag can be disabled for the package specifically. Thanks Michal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
