Re: Set MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=no for samba?

[Roland Illig <roland.illig%gmx.de@localhost>]

Am 5. Januar 2019 11:46:10 MEZ schrieb Benny Siegert <bsiegert%gmail.com@localhost>:
>Hi,
>
>net/samba consistently fails to build for me with MAKE_JOBS=12. This
>is because it wants to link all the things in parallel, which ends up
>exhausting the maximum number of open files in the system.
>
>Would there be objections if I set it as not MAKE_JOBS_SAFE?

It feels wrong to me. In my mind the intention of MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=no is to mark packages that cannot reliably be built in parallel because they don't declare their inner dependencies properly. This is not the case here.

It would be more precise to declare the package as MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=retry because the package declares everything correctly, it just doesn't build because of a resource limitation of the build host. The "retry" is not yet implemented though.

Another idea would be to declare the package as MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=compile or WRAPPER_PARALLEL_LINK_MAX=1. If implemented, this would need a change to the wrapper infrastructure, allowing unlimited compile calls but limiting the link calls to 1 at a time. Limiting the parallel calls may also be useful on memory-limited host when compiling complicated C++ code.

Yet another idea would be a package-settable MAKE_JOBS_MAX=4, but the optimal value of that setting would depend on the configuration of the build host.