On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:34 AM, Pierre Labastie wrote:
> Will commit your patch (since I have a limited ability to test CLFS,
> and
> that patch only affects CLFS, I trust you). The question is whether we
> should have a similar mechanism for LFS (possiblity to build chapter 5
> with makeflags only while building chapter 6 with makeflags and
> optimization, which is not possible presently AFAICT).
>
> Another related and more general question is whether "make install"
> shouldn't always be run with -j1.
> Since the bottleneck is mainly I/O during installation, I would expect
> that the performance would not be significantly degraded. OTH, in some
> cases, packages which build OK with make -jN do not always install
> (see
> http://lists.cross-lfs.org/pipermail/clfs-dev-cross-lfs.org/2013-September/001720.html)
>
> .
> It would be easy to change that in command generation.
>
> What do the others think ?
Hello Pierre,
A slight change to the OPT_3 bool
It should only be availble if BOOK_CLFS.
config OPT_3
bool "Cross tools (MAKEFLAGS only), temp
tools and final system" if BOOK_CLFS
Notice I added if BOOK_CLFS at the end of the bool line under config
OPT_3.
For the perl issue, it may be cause of not using the make upstream
fixes patch in chapter 5 make. I'm going to verify. By adding the
patch into ch5 and see if the problem persists. Also, MAKEFLAGS is
exported, and the build system should use it properly when generating
the Makefiles. I'm not sure why any dev would be using job control
during install, but they do! I also do understand that sometimes when
running make install, that some packages are still compiling code and
linking libraries!
Frankly, I do not understand why devs wouldn't force job control to 1
or turn it off altogether while doing make install. Same for some
testsuites.
Sincerely,
William Harrington
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/alfs-discuss
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
