Subject: Re: pkgsrc on SMP machines
To: Dieter Baron <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Lars Nordlund <email@example.com>
Date: 12/22/2005 22:36:12
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:21:15 +0100
Dieter Baron <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> That is not sufficient. If two builds install into the same
> LOCALBASE (and thus into the same PKGDBDIR), the lock is needed to
> prevent PKGDBDIR from getting corrupted.
Ah, ok. Thanks for the input. Hmm, 'the lock'? Is there locking
going on in the pkg_* commands? I thought it was just around the build
I am now considering adding locks so I can at least safely use
'parallel' together with pkg_chk and similar tools. But I am not in a
hurry. I have not bought the dual-core AMD64 yet.. ;-)
> Which is pretty similar to what the bulk builds do, with one
> important optimaization: packages are not deinstalled and reinstalled
The obvious optimization, yes.
> We moved away from tracking the build order with make because it
> prooved too unwieldy. I cannot imagine how it would work better with
> the added complexity of parallel builds.
I do not think make is worse than anything else for keeping track of
builds. Either bulk builds or "local" builds.