On 6/5/07, Bryan Kadzban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I like Dan's idea, FWIW (mention the -j option in the > text, but put a cautionary note in there saying that compile errors may > happen, and to re-try the compile without -j if they do).
That's pretty much what I was thinking initially, before this turned into the 'optimum make -j parameter' thread. A simple paragraph, making it abundantly clear that build failures with make -j should first and foremost be re-done (from a clean tarball unpack) with make -j1 should prevent most newbie complaints, and give everyone more bang for their buck. I think the people have spoken on this one. Thanks all for the useful feedback. -Deskin Miller -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
