On 31.10.2007, at 05:13, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2007-10-30 16:20:18 +0100, Markus Weissmann wrote:
On 30.10.2007, at 13:52, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
The bug could also be reported upstream, so that a ".NOTPARALLEL:"
is added to the Makefile.
Well, this simply is not going to work -- this has to be an opt-in,
not an opt-out option!
That's not the point. Whether MacPorts uses a parallel build by
default
or not, a Makefile should be correct (either by supporting parallel
build or by having a ".NOTPARALLEL:"). If it is not, this is a bug.
If such bugs are not reported upstream, you're not going anywhere
(experience shows that in general, upstream doesn't test parallel
builds).
If you do not know if a parallel build will work for a port, you must
assume it won't.
I disagree. Port maintainers should test their port to see if they
work
with "make -j".
Well, you cannot reliably test this. If you're lucky it might work
one time and fail the other.
Once upon a day when we see that 80% of our ports all have that
"build_in_parallel yes" option set, we can make it the default, but
not as long as only _very_ few do.
Yes, but how can you hope that 80% of ports will have
"build_in_parallel yes" if one assumes that parallel build doesn't
work?
I didn't say I assume this to be the case one day, it was more of an
utopian perspective; one that currently is not true for sure.
The point is that ports that are not given 110% love (e.g.
unmaintained ones, busy maintainers) will simply break -- probably in
spectacular non-deterministic ways.
-Markus
--
Markus W. Weissmann
http://www.mweissmann.de/
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
