On Monday 16 October 2006 12:46, Nikolas Britton wrote:
> On 10/13/06, Kent Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 13 October 2006 07:31, Buki wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I searched the archives and web a little but found many different
> > > opinions on stability/usability of using make
On Monday 16 October 2006 15:33, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
> At 1:47 PM -0700 10/13/06, Kent Stewart wrote:
> >On Friday 13 October 2006 07:31, Buki wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I searched the archives and web a little but found many different
> >> opinions on stability/usability of using make -j# w
At 1:47 PM -0700 10/13/06, Kent Stewart wrote:
On Friday 13 October 2006 07:31, Buki wrote:
Hi,
I searched the archives and web a little but found many different
opinions on stability/usability of using make -j# with buildworld
(and buildkernel).
So I am asking if it is a good idea to use
On 10/13/06, Kent Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 13 October 2006 07:31, Buki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I searched the archives and web a little but found many different
> opinions on stability/usability of using make -j# with buildworld
> (and buildkernel).
>
> So I am asking if it is a good
On Oct 13, 2006, at 5:49 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
Same exact error on buildkernel -j2, but success without -j2.
I put up logs + kernel config at http://vivek.khera.org/scratch/
buildkernel/
That one has been fixed in RELENG_6, in src/sys/conf/files.i386:
Excellent! I'll be updating my pr
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 04:52:18PM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2006, at 4:07 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> >OK, please try merging my fix then, it should help.
> >Please come back to me with a success report. :-)
>
> I applied the patch to bring i386/acpica/Makefile up to version 1
On Oct 13, 2006, at 4:07 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
OK, please try merging my fix then, it should help.
Please come back to me with a success report. :-)
I applied the patch to bring i386/acpica/Makefile up to version 1.7
Same exact error on buildkernel -j2, but success without -j2.
I put u
On Friday 13 October 2006 07:31, Buki wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I searched the archives and web a little but found many different
> opinions on stability/usability of using make -j# with buildworld
> (and buildkernel).
>
> So I am asking if it is a good idea to use make -j on production
> boxes.
>
I tested
Le 13/10/2006 à 16:31:30+0200, Buki a écrit
> Hi,
>
> I searched the archives and web a little but found many different opinions
> on stability/usability of using make -j# with buildworld (and buildkernel).
>
> So I am asking if it is a good idea to use make -j on production boxes.
>
On my new
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:12:38PM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> >>Works for me with -j2 on buildworld.
> >>
> >>My buildkernel fails since I compile acpi static.
> >>
> >Hmm, and where and how does it break? This commit (not yet
>
> i pok
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 12:56:28PM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
>
> >>Works for me with -j2 on buildworld.
> >>
> >>My buildkernel fails since I compile acpi static.
> >>
> >Hmm, and where and how does it break? This commit (not yet
> >in RELE
Buki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I searched the archives and web a little but found many different opinions
> on stability/usability of using make -j# with buildworld (and buildkernel).
>
> So I am asking if it is a good idea to use make -j on production boxes.
In addition to all of the other c
>
> Some work is now being done so that -j can be reliably used on
> 'make buildkernel', but I don't think that has been completed yet. For
> now, my own opinion is that you're not going to save enough time with
> -j on buildkernel to justify the amount of time you'll lose if it does
> not work.
Buki wrote:
Hi,
I searched the archives and web a little but found many different opinions
on stability/usability of using make -j# with buildworld (and buildkernel).
So I am asking if it is a good idea to use make -j on production boxes.
I use -j2 on all my dual cpu/core boxes, i don't re
At 4:31 PM +0200 10/13/06, Buki wrote:
Hi,
I searched the archives and web a little but found many different
opinions on stability/usability of using make -j# with buildworld
(and buildkernel).
So I am asking if it is a good idea to use make -j on production
boxes.
It depends on the target.
On Oct 13, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
Works for me with -j2 on buildworld.
My buildkernel fails since I compile acpi static.
Hmm, and where and how does it break? This commit (not yet
i poked around some more and i do see acpi broken, but make just
ignores the error during
On Oct 13, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
Works for me with -j2 on buildworld.
My buildkernel fails since I compile acpi static.
Hmm, and where and how does it break? This commit (not yet
in RELENG_6) doesn't help?
To be clear: make buildkernel works, but make -j2 builkernel us
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 11:06:37AM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Buki wrote:
>
> >I searched the archives and web a little but found many different
> >opinions
> >on stability/usability of using make -j# with buildworld (and
> >buildkernel).
>
> Works for me wit
On Oct 13, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Buki wrote:
I searched the archives and web a little but found many different
opinions
on stability/usability of using make -j# with buildworld (and
buildkernel).
Works for me with -j2 on buildworld.
My buildkernel fails since I compile acpi static.
But I on
Hi,
I searched the archives and web a little but found many different opinions
on stability/usability of using make -j# with buildworld (and buildkernel).
So I am asking if it is a good idea to use make -j on production boxes.
Thanks,
Marek Kozlovsky
--
PGP public key: http://dev.null.cz/buki.
20 matches
Mail list logo
