Subject: Re: MAKE_JOBS_SAFE and bulk builds
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/16/2007 11:52:37
Joerg Sonnenberger <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 09:32:20AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> Has anyone run bulk builds with MAKE_JOBS=4 on a dual-processor, or some
>> higher values? I would expect that there would be a lot of failures,
>> but also that we're getting to the point where it's almost reasonable
>> for people to turn on MAKE_JOBS.
> I still object MAKE_JOBS and would prefer to see it removed. It is
> almost never reliable and I'm still waiting to see a bigger packages
> where it actually works.
In 2007, I view an upstream package that can't be compiled with -j4 to
It's a fair question as to whether MAKE_JOBS should default to off
unless MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=yes, but so far we aren't headed that way.
It looks like firefox builds with MAKE_JOBS, or at least make show-all
leads me to think that.
Granted, it's hard to prove that it is safe in all cases, but that's the
kind of package where I'd expect the upstream folks to be doing parallel