> 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.
No matter in which way you look at something. Which is the policy to opt-out/opt-in packages? Can we talk about ideas to find out whether there is a solution at all other than "I trust the comitter that he had a good feeling?" Talking about either case doesn't make sense unless we also talk about when to use parallel builds at all. Which information is enough to opt-in a package? Because I don't have an answer for that I used a global opt-in and wanted to use this feature on my computer only while using hydra binaries. I put this one question: How do find out whether a package is trustworthy so that you can use parallel build? Talk about that please rather than opt-in vs opt-out. My reasoning was: "opt-out" is less work to make my use cases (testing while developing only) work. I'm for a perfect patch. But I don't know how to do it unless we discuss this topic in depth. That's why I didn't even try to make a perfect patch. Marc Weber _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
