1 |
Brent Busby posted on Sat, 21 Aug 2010 12:37:40 -0500 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Actually, the new machine plus the two previous machines have all had |
4 |
> SMP. But I've never used a -j option on any of them, because the fact |
5 |
> that parallel compilation doesn't always work right has always scared |
6 |
> me away from it and made me worry I could be causing myself unnecessary |
7 |
> grief in the future with hard-to-diagnose issues. I'd love to use it |
8 |
> to get builds done faster, but the extra speed has never been worth it |
9 |
> to me if I can't entirely trust it. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> So, I've never used any '-j' setting in MAKEOPTS on any system. Is it |
12 |
> possible that with GCC 4.4 I'm getting some kind of implied parallel |
13 |
> execution anyway though, requiring me to set '-j1' to override it for |
14 |
> this package? |
15 |
|
16 |
FWIW, the type of breakage parallel make issues cause is, AFAIK, always a |
17 |
build-time breakage. If it builds fine but fails at run-time, it's not |
18 |
due to parallel make, but due to some other reason. |
19 |
|
20 |
Given that, you should be able to enable parallel make without worrying |
21 |
about it. The time it saves is well worth the occasional breakage with |
22 |
resulting halted merge, and then having to test and add a MAKEOPTS var to |
23 |
the appropriate /etc/portage/env file. Additionally, any errors you do |
24 |
run into are likely to be pretty well front-loaded. That is, you'll get |
25 |
them the first time you recompile that package after you enable parallel |
26 |
make, but after testing and finding that's the problem once (and hopefully |
27 |
checking for and reporting a bug if there's not one already filed), you |
28 |
can stick MAKEOPTS=-j1 in the appropriate env file, and won't have to |
29 |
worry about it again (unless you want to test to see if it's fixed, a few |
30 |
versions later), as the system will always use the env file setting for |
31 |
that package from then on. So after you've rebuilt your system a time or |
32 |
two, you'll seldom have the issue any more (unless upstream introduced a |
33 |
new bug), as all the problem packages will have -j1 already set in their |
34 |
env file, and will thus build without issue. |
35 |
|
36 |
Certainly, that's what I've found here. But the problem is much rarer |
37 |
than it was at least on mainline packages anyway (meaning I have fewer |
38 |
such env files than I used to, as I filed bugs, which eventually got fixed |
39 |
or at least worked around with a -j1 in the ebuild), as the ones with |
40 |
problems have all long since been reported and fixed or worked around by |
41 |
now. You may still find the occasional issue with a freshly introduced |
42 |
bug on an upgrade (tho it's unlikely on stable since ~arch will have |
43 |
likely caught it), and may find it on occasional obscure packages that |
44 |
nobody's bugged yet, but most definitely, the issue's FAR less common than |
45 |
it was, back before multi-cores became popular and I was one of the few |
46 |
running a dual CPU system, as there's FAR more wide testing for it, these |
47 |
days, and the bugs have for the most part been fixed by now. |
48 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
> This is the first machine I've installed from scratch since |
51 |
> '--as-needed' became part of the desktop policy. It's never seen a |
52 |
> libtool environment that doesn't use it -- I don't know if that has |
53 |
> anything to do with this problem or not though. |
54 |
|
55 |
FWIW, I installed Gentoo/~x86 from stages on my netbook, only a few months |
56 |
ago. I stuck --as-needed (plus a couple other select LDFLAGS I use) on |
57 |
it before the first build, so I /have/ actually done it. |
58 |
|
59 |
But as mentioned, I've already switched to kde4, and installed it |
60 |
directly, so that machine never saw kde3. Given the overlay situation, |
61 |
all of kde3 would definitely qualify as "obscure packages" that won't have |
62 |
had the testing that mainline stuff, including kde4, has had. So I can't |
63 |
say it'd surprise me to find that kde3 had a few packages that didn't like |
64 |
--as-needed. |
65 |
|
66 |
>> So... try building the package with MAKEOPTS=-j1 and see if that works. |
67 |
|
68 |
> Just tried it, unfortunately, it did the same thing: |
69 |
|
70 |
Well, that one shot down, unfortunately! |
71 |
|
72 |
>> (FWIW, I'm not going to discount the reasons many still run kde3, as |
73 |
>> until 4.4 and better, 4.5, despite official kde announcements to the |
74 |
>> contrary, kde4 was simply too bug riddled to be reasonably usable, and |
75 |
>> I spent well over 100 hours finding workaround, often scripting my own, |
76 |
>> and otherwise making an otherwise broken kde-4.2.4 work for me when I |
77 |
>> switched so I KNOW this to be true, but one thing I *DO* appreciate |
78 |
>> about kde4 is how much more effectively it parallel builds in |
79 |
>> comparison to kde3, therefore taking about half the build time on a |
80 |
>> 4-core including my dual-dual-core system, compared to kde3. It's NICE |
81 |
>> to be able to do a kde4 upgrade in the 4 hours or so it takes now, |
82 |
>> depending on how much is new code and how much is not in ccache, |
83 |
>> compared to the entire day, 6-8 hours, if there weren't other problems, |
84 |
>> it'd take to do the same with kde3.) |
85 |
> |
86 |
> Yeah, but the problem with it to me is it just isn't the same desktop |
87 |
> anymore. Most of it seems to be imitating Windows Vista/7, with a few |
88 |
> things derived from MacOS/X here and there (like the new Control Panel, |
89 |
> which strongly resembles the Mac's System Preferences app). KDE 3 used |
90 |
> to let you make desktops that were totally different. |
91 |
|
92 |
Keeping in mind what I said about not discounting anyone's reasons for |
93 |
still running kde3... May it continue to serve you well as long as you |
94 |
continue to choose it! |
95 |
|
96 |
I've never met a desktop environment that I liked in default config. FWIW, |
97 |
that's one of the reasons I'm a kde guy, as the lack of proper config |
98 |
options for gnome drives me crazy. |
99 |
|
100 |
And kde4 is now actually even more configurable than kde3 was, including |
101 |
ways to turn much of the "bling" off (and reset the desktop to the |
102 |
traditional single desktop folder icon based view), making it much like |
103 |
kde3. It's still some work reconfiguring stuff, but that can be expected |
104 |
from any upgrade of that size, and with 4.5, in general it's now only what |
105 |
one would expect to have to reconfigure with a major version bump upgrade, |
106 |
with little remaining of the the 100+ hour hell of additional brokenness |
107 |
workarounds, etc, that I had to do back with 4.2.4. |
108 |
|
109 |
> My own desktop actually resembles -- and this will probably puzzle some |
110 |
> people -- CDE from HP-UX. I'm one of those strange people who actually |
111 |
> like an X11 desktop to look like an X11 desktop. I find that most |
112 |
> "modern" desktops from Microsoft look and feel like a credit card |
113 |
> advertisement, while most modern desktops from Apple look like a 70's |
114 |
> car stereo (brushed chrome everywhere!). It seems to be very out of |
115 |
> fashion now to prefer one's computer look and act like...gasp!...a |
116 |
> computer, but that's what I like, and up until KDE 4, KDE was providing |
117 |
> a very nice CDE emulation. (Actually, KDE 3's imitation of CDE is quite |
118 |
> a bit more functional that real CDE...no shock there, I suppose.) |
119 |
|
120 |
Well, I don't know /what/ mine resembles. Certainly no defaults I've ever |
121 |
seen, anywhere, that's for SURE! But it fits my style well, almost like a |
122 |
custom fitted glove, now, mostly because it /is/ custom fitted, now, and |
123 |
that's the important thing for me. |
124 |
|
125 |
> Plus there's the fact that KDE 4, even now that it's more stable, seems |
126 |
> to use resources like we had them to burn. Actually, on modern |
127 |
> machines, that might be true, but I run studio recording apps, which is |
128 |
> a genre of application where more bandwidth equals more tracks, more |
129 |
> plugins, more disk i/o, etc. It's one of the few remaining types of |
130 |
> apps these days that are *not* just leaving your system idle most of the |
131 |
> time, and really do want all you can give them. People who are running |
132 |
> pro audio apps do not have CPU/RAM to burn, ever, even on a fast |
133 |
> machine! If you are running such programs, and your machine has more to |
134 |
> give, you want to give it to the apps, not the desktop, no matter how |
135 |
> *much* more that is. |
136 |
|
137 |
You have a good point. But as I said, while that might be the default, a |
138 |
lot of that can be turned off, now. |
139 |
|
140 |
And if you're /really/ serious about slimming your resource usage, you'd |
141 |
be running xfce or lighter, not kde or gnome either one, in any version |
142 |
(that'll still compile on a modern system, anyway, kde1 and gnome1... |
143 |
might be light enough, if you could get them to build). |
144 |
|
145 |
> So in general, KDE 4 has turned me away. I'll pass on its Windows Vista |
146 |
> look and feel, its enormous resource footprint, and the way they made |
147 |
> keeping any semblance of my current CDE-ish KDE desktop unsupportable. |
148 |
|
149 |
CDE-ish shouldn't be an issue. You simply customize it the way you did |
150 |
kde3. It's still possible. Same with Windows Vista look and feel. |
151 |
That's purely customizable. And if you keep effects off and do a few |
152 |
other config tweaks, resource usage shouldn't be terribly much more than |
153 |
3.5.10, either. |
154 |
|
155 |
FWIW, I'm on both this list and the kde general and kde-linux lists. |
156 |
kde3 /is/ likely to get harder to run, over time, so your clock is ticking |
157 |
on it. When you /do/ decide you've had enough, be that tomorrow or two |
158 |
years from now, do give kde4 an honest shot before giving up on it. It |
159 |
really /is/ surprisingly flexible, now, and while the defaults are indeed |
160 |
quite blingy and resource heavy especially on older graphics hardware, as |
161 |
I said, I know what it's like to not like any default desktop I've ever |
162 |
seen, and one of the reasons I continued with kde4 despite all those |
163 |
problems I had, was that I realized that they /would/ pass, kde4 as it |
164 |
was /would/ get better, and when it was all said and done, I'd be a whole |
165 |
lot better off remaining with kde where the policy /does/ favor giving the |
166 |
user the tools to customize, as compared to desktops where customization |
167 |
options are actively removed as too complex and confusing for the user. |
168 |
Each desktop has its users comfortable with that approach, but one thing |
169 |
that you /cannot/ accurately fault kde for is failing to make available |
170 |
the customization tools for those who do /not/ find default desktops to |
171 |
their liking. (At least, not after they get going on a version. Early |
172 |
kde4 was as pretty much everyone agrees now, simply a mess. 4.4 is a |
173 |
reasonable release candidate, and 4.5 is honestly the first 4.x version I |
174 |
can without qualms recommend to pretty much anyone and everyone.) |
175 |
|
176 |
-- |
177 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
178 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
179 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |