tor 2009-11-26 klockan 05:04 +0000 skrev Duncan: > Ciaran McCreesh posted on Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:13:27 +0000 as excerpted: > > > Examples will merely be > > dismissed as one-off cases that can be worked around, or as relying upon > > a string of coincidences that will "obviously" never really happen, > > right up until they do, at which point they'll be dismissed with a > > WORKSFORME. What you have is a proof that it's broken, which is far > > better than an example. > > Actually, that "dismissed with WORKSFORME" strikes a chord, here. There > was a very strange parallel make bug that I filed that was closed with > that. I'd have really liked to see someone with some skill tackle it, as > that was the only one I've ever seen that had striped fail and working > zones, and I've have loved to see some logic as to why... (If -j10 > failed, -j3 and -j15 might succeed, -l24 fail again, and -j33 succeed > again...) Unfortunately, flameeyes, the only one I know who really gets > into such things, was fresh out of the hospital at the time, and I think > it was beyond the maintainer's abilities, so WORKSFORME was about the > best that could be done. I've long since changed and changed again my > makeopts, and don't remember the pkg now, tho I could probably find it in > my old bug mail if I needed to. > > So I gotta admit you have a point, with that one. >
That is just a *really* bad maintainer. Or a *really* bad bugreport. Or something that showed you already had a *really* screwed up system. What is the bug number? Did you post your emerge --info and a *full* build.log? Also information about what makeopts works and not gives nothing, that just becomes noise. Becouse what makeopts works and not depends most of the time on a race condition in the makefiles and can because of that also depend on stuff like your current system load.
