Thomas Rösner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Thu, 06 Nov 2008
02:27:15 +0100:
> But with rotating storage, don't you (very much) only want one I/O-bound
> job at a time?
Invalid assumption(s). This is more a user list topic or personal wiki/
google research pr
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Do you really think, a package that supports parallel make while compiling
> fails support for
> parallel make support on install?
>
See bug 196728. It's an (old) automake issue.
> And emake is and still should be the default. If there is an issue with it,
> the ebuild au
Hi,
> And emake is and still should be the default. If there is an issue with it,
> the ebuild author has to
> change his ebuild. But this should not be taken to force only one makejob for
> everyone else.
>
But with rotating storage, don't you (very much) only want one I/O-bound
job at a ti
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 09:20:07PM +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Peter Alfredsen schrieb:
> Do you really think, a package that supports parallel make while compiling
> fails support for
> parallel make support on install?
Happened for jabberd and jabberd2 to me.
pgpjnLZOswT2t.pgp
Description:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:20:07 +0100
Thomas Sachau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you really think, a package that supports parallel make while
> compiling fails support for parallel make support on install?
Yup, that's fairly common.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Peter Alfredsen schrieb:
> On Wednesday 05 November 2008, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
>> You should at least use emake instead of make in src_install. And i
>> would suggest to use something like this instead of the make install
>> line (maybe add some other default docs, if they are common):
>>
>> if
On Wednesday 05 November 2008, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> You should at least use emake instead of make in src_install. And i
> would suggest to use something like this instead of the make install
> line (maybe add some other default docs, if they are common):
>
> if [ -f Makefile ] || [ -f GNUmakefil
Peter Alfredsen schrieb:
> On Monday 03 November 2008, Steve Long wrote:
>> Peter Alfredsen wrote:
>>> debug-print-function $FUNCNAME $*
>> You should be using "$@" not unquoted $*.
>
> Fixed. Also fixed base_src_unpack and base_src_compile calling their
> grunt functions with $1, when clearly it
On Monday 03 November 2008, Steve Long wrote:
> Peter Alfredsen wrote:
> > debug-print-function $FUNCNAME $*
>
> You should be using "$@" not unquoted $*.
Fixed. Also fixed base_src_unpack and base_src_compile calling their
grunt functions with $1, when clearly it should have been [EMAIL PROTECTE
Peter Alfredsen wrote:
> debug-print-function $FUNCNAME $*
You should be using "$@" not unquoted $*.
Seems like the FUNCNAME bit should just be rolled into the function
with "${FUNCNAME[1]}" which could be done tree-wide quite easily.
10 matches
Mail list logo
