On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 15:47:09 -0700
Gordon Malm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It looks to me like hardened is doing entirely the wrong thing.
> > Thus, the proper fix is to make hardened behave itself.
> It looks to me like you've already made up your mind.  How is
> hardened doing the entirely wrong thing?  What do you propose can be
> done to "fix" the hardened compiler?  What about madwifi-ng?  You are
> getting increasingly narrow in your points of objection.

I suggest you get the hardened upstream people to stop abusing the -D
switch to gcc. The distcc people suggest the same.

> Parallel building problems can often and should be addressed
> properly.  I don't want the answer to every one that comes along to
> be to add RESTRICT="distcc".  This is something to be addressed
> through developer documentation that using RESTRICT="distcc" should
> be a last resort.

Uh, RESTRICT=distcc won't even fix parallel make problems. It'll just
make them harder to reproduce on some systems.

> However, in practice making a package parallel-make safe isn't always
> trivial. So what happens in these cases is FEATURES=distcc && die
> check is put in place killing the emerge chain and requiring user
> intervention.  Either that or the bug just lingers and the compile
> fails somewhere in the middle...

...or you could use -j1, which whilst being horrible will at least work.

> I don't know about palaudis but this is like a one line patch to
> portage.  But silly me, I thought the package manager was there to
> support the distribution.

You have yet to demonstrate how RESTRICT=distcc will help. In fact, you
seem to be demonstrating that all it'll do is make a few people apply a
'fix' that won't reliably fix anything.

*If* there's a legitimate use for RESTRICT=distcc then I am entirely in
favour of it. But it looks like there isn't, with every issue being
either a parallelism issue (which RESTRICT=distcc won't fix), a user
configuration issue (which RESTRICT=distcc won't fix) or a hardened
toolchain bug (for which RESTRICT=distcc is massive overkill, and thus
the wrong solution). You've decided upon a solution before you've
worked out what the problem is.

Ciaran McCreesh

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to