On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:21:15 +0100
Dieter Baron <dillo@danbala.ifoer.tuwien.ac.at> 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
directory?

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
> needlessly.

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.


Best regards,
	Lars Nordlund