| 1 |
Brian Harring posted on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:10:16 -0700 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> RESTRICT=parallel is basically a big lock that forces building to go |
| 4 |
> down to one specific build/merge job- it's not at all fine grained. That |
| 5 |
> said, I'm not convinced it's worth actually *trying* to be fine grained. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Stuff that needs this 'lock', if you look at it from the purely academic |
| 8 |
> angle is broken. The pkgs in question should be buildable without |
| 9 |
> modifying the livefs. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> From the pragmatic angle, fixing some of those packages is a pretty huge |
| 12 |
> endeavour hence this lock existing. I see no reason to encourage the |
| 13 |
> usage of this lock by making it more fine grained, either. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
What examples of the problem do we have, other than xorg-server due to |
| 16 |
eselect opengl? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
For just xorg-server, killing parallel seems like a rather frustrating and |
| 19 |
indeed broken solution (especially for folks who prefer to run freedomware |
| 20 |
and thus have only the X11/mesa opengl version on their system anyway, so |
| 21 |
forcing non-parallel is an exercise in uselessness). If it's the only |
| 22 |
one, at /least/ only forcing non-parallel if the eselect opengl actually |
| 23 |
changes the selected opengl would seem reasonable. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
But if there's other non-contrived examples around, getting a couple of |
| 26 |
them on the table should I think clarify our potential usage constraints |
| 27 |
somewhat. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 31 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 32 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives