From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1O4XiJ-0006RZ-FW for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:03:27 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D981E0B15 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 11:03:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96A3E0AF4 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:34:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (dynamic-adsl-84-220-90-111.clienti.tiscali.it [84.220.90.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B2D21B4053; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:34:46 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4BCED4C6.7010304@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:34:46 +0200 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.2pre) Gecko/20100416 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.1b1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org CC: Justin Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] RESTRICT=parallel for builds that can't be executed in parallel References: <4BC52478.3020303@gentoo.org> <4BC564B7.2090103@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4BC564B7.2090103@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: b3b5339d-4f95-4b58-b8f7-481f78943af1 X-Archives-Hash: d5f1accb1cfac2a6944754d8dd2d01c6 On 04/14/2010 08:46 AM, Justin wrote: > There is at least one other example which benefits from singlular build, > atlas libs. They run a benchmark suite to create platform specific > headers, which is heavily influenced by the system load. So having > RESTRICT=parallel would make the emerge more reliable. I wonder if that case shouldn't be handled better with an huge ewarn so people concerned would really run it in a benchmark environment, alone. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero