Hello Peter, On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 08:36:24PM +0200, Peter Simons wrote: > Hi Lluís, > I see, thank you for the quick response. What I don't see, however, is how > substituters might accomplish in-build parallelization?
I thought of a substituter that could take the derive file, change it, and issue an output path build. > > I have a fear (not necesarily irrational) that not many people wrote good > > Makefiles (in terms of reproduceability of results in parallel builds). > > It sounds a lot like your fear *is* irrational, because it is in stark > contrast > to the real world. Virtually everyone who owns a multi-core machine does > enable > parallel building, because without that feature build times for packages like > the Linux kernel, GHC, GCC, glibc, etc. would be so immense that it would be > extremely unpleasant to actually work on that code. Consequently, build > systems > of packages of a significant size tend to be extremely well tested with regard > to parallel building. Also, other Linux distributions like Gentoo or ArchLinux > utilize parallel building, and that seems to work, too. So I wonder on what > rational criteria your fear might be based? That my fear is related to people that may have written bad the Makefiles, and that fear makes me simply against the opt-out approach, but I sure favour the opt-in. I trust projects like those you mention, and I'd also build them in parallel without any fear, and in preference over single-task build. > It is no secret that some packages don't support parallel building for > whatever > reason, and the commonly utilized approach to deal with that situation is to > build them single-threadedly. Also mine. Regards, Lluís. _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
