[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: make -j in Debian packages

On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 11:58:28PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 08:23:00PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 03:04:14PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 02, 2006 at 11:57:50AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > Additionally, it puzzles me how you think a maintainer will be able to
> > > > accurately predict how much RAM a certain build is going to use. There
> > > > are so many variables, that I think anything but 'this is the fastest
> > > > way to build it on my machine' is going to be unfeasible.
> > > 
> > > Let's say:
> > > program X consist of a number of C files; it seems like compiling
> > > every file takes around 24MB,
> > 
> > Like I said, there's just too many variables. Also, I wouldn't be
> > interested in figuring out how much RAM the build takes if I were to
> > maintain a package like, say, X or so.
> No one forces you to do so.  No one even said a word about making
> concurrency mandatory.  It's just a way to make builds faster on
> machines that are beefy enough (ie, virtually all).
> > You're not convincing me that you can indeed accurately predict for
> > every compiled language out there how much RAM you're going to need
> > during the build.
> So what?  If you're not sure, you simply don't provide your
> prediction.  And with a huge safety margin, you would have to be
> MALICIOUS to make a mistake.
> > Before you've proven that this is indeed possible, I don't think
> > there's much point in this whole exercise; otherwise there
> > *is* going to be a problem with you overloading build machines, and
> > *you will* get bugs filed about that (from me, at the very least).
> Here, you got a piece of working code, is that not a good enough
> proof?  Tell me how exactly a build using 4 processes using ~24MB
> each overloading a build machine which has 512+MB ram.  And builds
> which do require 1+GB of memory, well, simply are not going to use
> any concurrency.
> And note that the system I propose actually _limits_ concurrency in
> some cases.  The whole thread started with gem packages choking the
> m68k build.  It's a big package, and the maintainer rightfully
> thinked that it is completely useless on small arches.

Err, AIUI, ruby gems are a way to automatically install extras to a
running ruby environment, much in the same way that the CPAN module is
used for Perl.

I fail to see why this would be "completely useless" on smaller
architectures. If you want to use ruby there, you may want to use gem.

Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

Reply to: