[gentoo-dev] using -j1 with distcc?

[gentoo-dev] using -j1 with distcc?

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 869 bytes --]

From bind-9.3.2-r4.ebuild:

    # idea from dev-libs/cyrus-sasl
    if has distcc ${FEATURES}; then
        einfo "You have \"distcc\" enabled"
        einfo "build with MAKEOPTS=\"-j1\""
        jobs="-j1"
    else
        einfo "build with MAKEOPTS=${MAKEOPTS}"
        jobs=""
    fi

    emake ${jobs} || die "failed to compile bind"

I think this is bogus.  If building with distcc reveals a parallel
build issue, then the issue exists with or without distcc, it just
seems to happen less often without it.  We've been down this road
before, maybe people have forgotten?

bind-9.3.2-r4.ebuild failed to build for me on dual ia64.  Building
with -j1 works.

Unless somebody can explain how this is valid, I'll go ahead and fix
the bind ebuilds (where "fix" means "use -j1 unconditionally since the
Makefiles aren't parallel safe").

Aron

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] AutoMake and paralle safe makefiles [WAS: using -j1 with distcc?]

[Alec Warner]

Aron Griffis wrote:
> From bind-9.3.2-r4.ebuild:
> 
> Unless somebody can explain how this is valid, I'll go ahead and fix
> the bind ebuilds (where "fix" means "use -j1 unconditionally since the
> Makefiles aren't parallel safe").
> 
> Aron

If I'm using Autotools, aren't they smart enough (given that I specify 
the proper headers, and source files and whatnot) to generate parallel 
safe makefiles?  Or is it a shot in the dark as to whether it works or not?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] using -j1 with distcc?

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1220 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:34:52AM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> From bind-9.3.2-r4.ebuild:
> 
>     # idea from dev-libs/cyrus-sasl
>     if has distcc ${FEATURES}; then
>         einfo "You have \"distcc\" enabled"
>         einfo "build with MAKEOPTS=\"-j1\""
>         jobs="-j1"
>     else
>         einfo "build with MAKEOPTS=${MAKEOPTS}"
>         jobs=""
>     fi
> 
>     emake ${jobs} || die "failed to compile bind"
> 
> I think this is bogus.  If building with distcc reveals a parallel
> build issue, then the issue exists with or without distcc, it just
> seems to happen less often without it.  We've been down this road
> before, maybe people have forgotten?
> 
> bind-9.3.2-r4.ebuild failed to build for me on dual ia64.  Building
> with -j1 works.
> 
> Unless somebody can explain how this is valid, I'll go ahead and fix
> the bind ebuilds (where "fix" means "use -j1 unconditionally since the
> Makefiles aren't parallel safe").

Similar trickery in app-office/openoffice, although they enable -jN if 
distcc is enabled, else -j1 ...

Always wondered how that was valid, just avoid OO compiles enough it 
wasn't something I ever got around to looking into :)
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] AutoMake and paralle safe makefiles [WAS: using -j1 with distcc?]

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 783 bytes --]

On Wednesday 13 September 2006 16:51, Alec Warner wrote:
> If I'm using Autotools, aren't they smart enough (given that I specify
> the proper headers, and source files and whatnot) to generate parallel
> safe makefiles?  Or is it a shot in the dark as to whether it works or not?
If you use automake, 90% they are parallel make safe. There are issues in 
cases

a) you refer to a library in the same directory as the Makefile providing the 
full pathname;
b) you don't put the SUBDIRS variable in the correct order for things to being 
built;
c) you provide custom targets for instance to run scripts that create source 
files.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] AutoMake and paralle safe makefiles [WAS: using -j1 with distcc?]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 775 bytes --]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:51:47 -0400 Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Aron Griffis wrote:
| > From bind-9.3.2-r4.ebuild:
| > 
| > Unless somebody can explain how this is valid, I'll go ahead and fix
| > the bind ebuilds (where "fix" means "use -j1 unconditionally since
| > the Makefiles aren't parallel safe").
| 
| If I'm using Autotools, aren't they smart enough (given that I
| specify the proper headers, and source files and whatnot) to generate
| parallel safe makefiles?  Or is it a shot in the dark as to whether
| it works or not?

You can quite easily screw up Makefile.am and generate unsafe code when
using automake. It doesn't remove the need to know what you're doing.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail            : ciaranm at ciaranm.org


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] using -j1 with distcc?

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1842 bytes --]

On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 07:52 -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:34:52AM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> > From bind-9.3.2-r4.ebuild:
> > 
> >     # idea from dev-libs/cyrus-sasl
> >     if has distcc ${FEATURES}; then
> >         einfo "You have \"distcc\" enabled"
> >         einfo "build with MAKEOPTS=\"-j1\""
> >         jobs="-j1"
> >     else
> >         einfo "build with MAKEOPTS=${MAKEOPTS}"
> >         jobs=""
> >     fi
> > 
> >     emake ${jobs} || die "failed to compile bind"
> > 
> > I think this is bogus.  If building with distcc reveals a parallel
> > build issue, then the issue exists with or without distcc, it just
> > seems to happen less often without it.  We've been down this road
> > before, maybe people have forgotten?
> > 
> > bind-9.3.2-r4.ebuild failed to build for me on dual ia64.  Building
> > with -j1 works.
> > 
> > Unless somebody can explain how this is valid, I'll go ahead and fix
> > the bind ebuilds (where "fix" means "use -j1 unconditionally since the
> > Makefiles aren't parallel safe").
> 
> Similar trickery in app-office/openoffice, although they enable -jN if 
> distcc is enabled, else -j1 ...
> 
> Always wondered how that was valid, just avoid OO compiles enough it 
> wasn't something I ever got around to looking into :)
> ~harring

I don't see how it can be valid, especially ferringb's example.
Enabling distcc doesn't mean the build will distribute; only that the
possibility is there.  If you happen to build when the other system(s)
is(are) unavailable for some reason, you get everything on the host, so
for ferringb, e.g., this would mean -jN on one system.

As for Aron's case, I agree with him.

Regards,
Ferris
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc)


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] using -j1 with distcc?

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 603 bytes --]

Brian Harring wrote:  [Wed Sep 13 2006, 10:52:17AM EDT]
> Similar trickery in app-office/openoffice, although they enable -jN if 
> distcc is enabled, else -j1 ...
> 
> Always wondered how that was valid, just avoid OO compiles enough it 
> wasn't something I ever got around to looking into :)

The openoffice ebuild is okay.  It disables parallel builds by
default, since openoffice isn't parallel safe.  But the ebuild
provides a sekrit variable WANT_DISTCC that can be set to use -j* from
MAKEOPTS.

In this case WANT_DISTCC is a misnomer but the technique isn't
actually bad.

Aron

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] using -j1 with distcc?

[Aron Griffis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 400 bytes --]

Aron Griffis wrote:  [Wed Sep 13 2006, 10:34:52AM EDT]
> Unless somebody can explain how this is valid, I'll go ahead and fix
> the bind ebuilds (where "fix" means "use -j1 unconditionally since
> the Makefiles aren't parallel safe").

Maybe this was quick on my part, but I've gone ahead and fixed the
ebuilds.  They can always be "fixed back" if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty
certain...

Regards,
Aron

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] using -j1 with distcc?

[Konstantin V. Arkhipov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 500 bytes --]

On Wednesday 13 September 2006 19:30, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Aron Griffis wrote:  [Wed Sep 13 2006, 10:34:52AM EDT]
>
> > Unless somebody can explain how this is valid, I'll go ahead and fix
> > the bind ebuilds (where "fix" means "use -j1 unconditionally since
> > the Makefiles aren't parallel safe").
>
> Maybe this was quick on my part, but I've gone ahead and fixed the
> ebuilds.  They can always be "fixed back" if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty
> certain...

thanks.

-- 
voxus
:wq

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]