On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:51:25 +0100 (CET)
Hubert Feyrer <feyrer@cs.stevens.edu> wrote:
> To ask the question that I've asked before AGAIN, what is good about 
> having N-1 CPUs sit idle while waiting for gtk/qt to build, instead of 
> using N CPUs to build gtk/qt?

Given a large enough list of packages to build, make will probably be
able to schedule other packages on the other CPUs.

The main reason that I choose to parallelize between different packages
and not inside a single package, is the wrapper framework in pkgsrc.
"adding locks in there", as has been suggested on this list earlier, is
IMO not good/efficient enough and will be problematic over NFS.

> > The patch to do this is fairly simple. No *years of development* is
> > required. I posted it to the list many months ago.
> 
> I must have missed it. Was it tested in practice? Any results from a full 
> bulk build? Which is mostly what we're talking about here...

It works for me (TM). I never received any constructive criticism. All
discussions just faded out into yap-yap like this thread.

>   - Hubert (still bored)

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2005/04/19/0001.html

The line which begins with
+		${ECHO} "	xterm -e \"cd /usr/pkg
should be changed into something suitable. Perhaps be configurable with
a default value. Launching xterms are just for show.


Best regards,
	Lars Nordlund