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 trackin
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 PROTEC
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 PROTEC
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
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 us
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 bug
>> 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
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 DEB
> It's documented in Debian policy, but parallel hasn't been added there yet.
> I
> think the new dpkg-buildpackage -j passes
> DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="parallel=".
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 Schepl
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 side
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 upl
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 -j passes
> > DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="parallel=".
>
> this sounds like it should not break things, as you have to evaluate
> t
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? la
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
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 usel
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 t
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 p
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 parall
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
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 re
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 :)
>
27 matches
Mail list logo
