On 2007-10-30 16:20:18 +0100, Markus Weissmann wrote: > On 30.10.2007, at 13:52, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> The bug could also be reported upstream, so that a ".NOTPARALLEL:" >> is added to the Makefile. > > Well, this simply is not going to work -- this has to be an opt-in, > not an opt-out option!
That's not the point. Whether MacPorts uses a parallel build by default or not, a Makefile should be correct (either by supporting parallel build or by having a ".NOTPARALLEL:"). If it is not, this is a bug. If such bugs are not reported upstream, you're not going anywhere (experience shows that in general, upstream doesn't test parallel builds). > If you do not know if a parallel build will work for a port, you must > assume it won't. I disagree. Port maintainers should test their port to see if they work with "make -j". > Once upon a day when we see that 80% of our ports all have that > "build_in_parallel yes" option set, we can make it the default, but > not as long as only _very_ few do. Yes, but how can you hope that 80% of ports will have "build_in_parallel yes" if one assumes that parallel build doesn't work? -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users