parallel builds revisited

[David Nečas (Yeti)]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 05:10:47PM +0200, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Peter Pentchev píše v pá 13. 04. 2007 v 18:06 +0300:
> > > 
> > > I was thinking about having it embedded in every port's Makefile
> > > directly, instead. Something like
> > > 
> > > USE_MAKE_JOBS=	2
> > 
> > IMHO, hardcoding the number of jobs in the port's Makefile would not
> > be the best approach.  I think a port should only flag whether it
> > supports parallel building at all or not - and leave the number of jobs
> > to either the ports framework or the administrator's choice.
> 
> That was just an example. You can do
> 
> USE_MAKE_JOBS=	yes
> 
> for autoscaling perfectly well. For details, see the patch I linked.

The patch gives no reason for such hardcoding, it just
implements it.  How many ports exist that can fail with N+1
jobs yet cannot break with N jobs (for N > 1)?

Yeti

--
http://gwyddion.net/