On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:18:32PM +0200, Gordian Edenhofer wrote: > > > > The second probably would not be accepted... > > > > > > I urge you to reconsider. Parallelization increases the speed of > > > this > > > > I don't think anyone is suggesting that packaging multiple things in > > parallel isn't useful. I already suggested that nothing needs to be > > implemented in bacman proper in order for you to parallelize the > > work. > > You can write your own "pbacman" as simply as: > > > > for arg; do bacman "$arg" & done; wait > > There is a huge difference between flooding your system with ~1000 jobs > and tightly controlling the maximum number. Adjusting the precise > number of jobs enables you to organize your resources which itself is > desirable.
Then use a program like 'parallel' which has this sort of knob. I really wonder what it is you're doing that requires running bacman with a large number of packages with any regularity. > Even if there would be a perfect wrapper for bacman - which there is > none - it would still make sense to implement easily understandable > options into bacman for everyone to use simply to spare others the time > of coming up with one. > > Best Regards, > Gordian Edenhofer
