Scribit Manoj Srivastava dies 09/10/2007 hora 00:04:
It is kinda scary that my typical ./debian/rules has a minimum of 61
targets, and that is just the base number. But it sure makes for
pretty pictures :)
How did you generate those dependency graphs, BTW? I didn't find
anything relevant in
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:34:45 +0200, Pierre THIERRY [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Scribit Manoj Srivastava dies 09/10/2007 hora 00:04:
It is kinda scary that my typical ./debian/rules has a minimum of 61
targets, and that is just the base number. But it sure makes for
pretty pictures :)
How did
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 14:36 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Anyway, I'm aware a lot of packages will probably break at the moment,
which
is why I'm using wishlist.
I still believe that you should not file such bugs, I still fail to
see how it improves debian, as if we really need to
Inspired by today's new upload of dpkg, I'm going to try doing a rebuild of
the archive using dpkg-buildpackage -j3 and submit bugs as I find them.
The bugs will be wishlist for now, and I'll assign usertag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:ftbfs-parallel to those bug reports for those
interested in tracking
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 10:53:05AM +, Daniel Schepler wrote:
Inspired by today's new upload of dpkg, I'm going to try doing a rebuild of
the archive using dpkg-buildpackage -j3 and submit bugs as I find them.
The bugs will be wishlist for now, and I'll assign usertag
[EMAIL
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 06:53:05AM -0400, Daniel Schepler wrote:
Inspired by today's new upload of dpkg, I'm going to try doing a rebuild of
the archive using dpkg-buildpackage -j3 and submit bugs as I find them.
The bugs will be wishlist for now, and I'll assign usertag
[EMAIL
On Monday 08 October 2007 07:49:09 am Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 10:53:05AM +, Daniel Schepler wrote:
Inspired by today's new upload of dpkg, I'm going to try doing a rebuild
of the archive using dpkg-buildpackage -j3 and submit bugs as I find
them. The bugs will be
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:07:12PM +, Daniel Schepler wrote:
On Monday 08 October 2007 07:49:09 am Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 10:53:05AM +, Daniel Schepler wrote:
Inspired by today's new upload of dpkg, I'm going to try doing a rebuild
of the archive using
On Monday 08 October 2007 07:50:58 am Domenico Andreoli wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 06:53:05AM -0400, Daniel Schepler wrote:
Inspired by today's new upload of dpkg, I'm going to try doing a rebuild
of the archive using dpkg-buildpackage -j3 and submit bugs as I find
them. The bugs will
Anyway, I'm aware a lot of packages will probably break at the moment, which
is why I'm using wishlist.
I still believe that you should not file such bugs, I still fail to
see how it improves debian, as if we really need to build more packages
at the same time, we could run many sbuild
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 01:50:58PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
in the latter case, is there any conventional way to parse DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS?
last time i read about it there were a couple of ways both having dark
sides... ah.. BTW google is not able to provide me any documentation
of
It's documented in Debian policy, but parallel hasn't been added there yet.
I
think the new dpkg-buildpackage -jn passes
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=parallel=n.
this sounds like it should not break things, as you have to evaluate
that manually. Or is there some magic which results into $(MAKE)
On Monday 08 October 2007 08:07:12 am Daniel Schepler wrote:
Especially when the easy work-around, if you don't want to bother adding
the proper dependencies to the make targets, is just to add .NOPARALLEL:
somewhere in the Makefile.
Sorry, that should be .NOTPARALLEL:.
--
Daniel Schepler
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:21:22AM -0400, Daniel Schepler wrote:
On Monday 08 October 2007 07:50:58 am Domenico Andreoli wrote:
in the latter case, is there any conventional way to parse
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS? last time i read about it there were a couple of ways
both having dark sides...
On Monday 08 October 2007 08:30:53 am Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:07:12PM +, Daniel Schepler wrote:
On Monday 08 October 2007 07:49:09 am Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 10:53:05AM +, Daniel Schepler wrote:
Inspired by today's new upload of
On Monday 08 October 2007 08:39:21 am Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
It's documented in Debian policy, but parallel hasn't been added there
yet. I think the new dpkg-buildpackage -jn passes
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=parallel=n.
this sounds like it should not break things, as you have to evaluate
that
On Monday 08 October 2007 08:30:53 am Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I still believe that you should not file such bugs, I still fail to
see how it improves debian, as if we really need to build more packages
at the same time, we could run many sbuild instances on the same
machine.
OK, how about
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 02:49:46PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:21:22AM -0400, Daniel Schepler wrote:
On Monday 08 October 2007 07:50:58 am Domenico Andreoli wrote:
in the latter case, is there any conventional way to parse
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS? last time i
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 02:30:53PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I still believe that you should not file such bugs, I still fail to
see how it improves debian, as if we really need to build more packages
at the same time, we could run many sbuild instances on the same
machine.
It isn't
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 01:58:17PM +, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 02:30:53PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I still believe that you should not file such bugs, I still fail to
see how it improves debian, as if we really need to build more packages
at the same time,
Hi
Dne Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:33:12 +0200
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a):
That said, I believe most of the packages I package are autoconf/cmake
based or are small enough so that a parallel build is useless, so I
probably wont be annoyed here.
BTW: When mentioning CMake, are
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 02:39:59PM +, Michal Čihař wrote:
Hi
Dne Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:33:12 +0200
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a):
That said, I believe most of the packages I package are autoconf/cmake
based or are small enough so that a parallel build is useless, so I
Hello
Dne Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:46:46 +0200
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a):
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 02:39:59PM +, Michal Čihař wrote:
BTW: When mentioning CMake, are there any known problems with parallel
build with it? I just randomly tried it last week and it seemed to be
Am Dienstag, den 09.10.2007, 00:00 +0900 schrieb Michal Čihař:
Hello
Dne Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:46:46 +0200
Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a):
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 02:39:59PM +, Michal Čihař wrote:
BTW: When mentioning CMake, are there any known problems with parallel
It looks like there are even more problems than I thought with the parallel
builds, so I won't be able to submit bugs on them all in a timely manner. So
for now, I've posted the build logs so far at
http://people.debian.org/~schepler/build-logs/ if you want to see the results
sooner. At this
Hi
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:30:37 +0200
Thomas Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Trivial example: a package that builds a binary which in turn is used to
create some source files for later compile.
If the source files don't have the binary as dependency, your build will
break with parallel
Hi,
[An earl=ier version of this mail did not go through, perhaps
because of the embedded images. I have now pulled the images out
on to my blog server]
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 06:53:05 -0400, Daniel Schepler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Inspired by today's new upload of dpkg,
27 matches
Mail list logo
