On Feb 2, 2008, at 19:25, Rainer Müller wrote:
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
Changes in base should not break existing ports, if at all possible. Ports may fail with this option enabled. Therefore it's opt-in on a port-by-port basis.
So every maintainer has to check for himself if his/her ports built fine with parallel building enabled? With this approach it will last a long time until we get real benefits of parallel building. Although many users already own multi-core Macs and want to have faster builds...
I don't think that many ports will break with this. As Yves said, 5 out of 150 failed for him. Tagging 5 ports is easier than tagging 150. And it would be not a real problem if a port fails, there is always the workaround to disable this option in macports.conf again until the Portfile for a failing port is modified accordingly.
There was a long thread on this topic leading up to the current implementation; please review: http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/2007-October/ 006479.html In particular Markus's comment here seems to exemplify why it's the way it is: http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/2007-October/ 006601.html "The point is that ports that are not given 110% love (e.g. unmaintained ones, busy maintainers) will simply break [if parallel builds are enabled by default] probably in spectacular non- deterministic ways." We have enough other problems with ports right now. Let's not make more, especially spectacular non-deterministic ones, by enabling parallel builds by default.