[Fedora-packaging] Re: smp_flags considered dangerous?

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Mon Jul 2 22:47:00 UTC 2007

On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 05:40:43PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 00:34 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Well, not "well written", but "trivial". Once you start messing with
> > non-conventional, non-linear builds (just think tex) you start leaving
> > the safe harbour, and you can reverse the above: "complex Makefiles
> > almost never wokr wit hsmpt flags".
> Out of 130+ packages I maintain, only 3 of them fail to build with
> smp_mflags.

That's the package you know about. The ugly thing about smp_flags is
that bugs may not exhibit at all, or only on every Nth build.

The submission of vtk was stalled for over a month due to that and I
wouldn't count myself as a greenhorn. Imagine Joe Average Packager
hitting this on every 40th package (or every 40th first time submitter
being killed that way).

> That's roughly 2%. IMHO, the guidelines should be for the most common
> cases.

If the 2% + dark factor are causing too much pain, then the picture

> If smp_mflags doesn't work with your package, no sweat, take it out and
> document it. But it should be the default, and all packages should try
> to use it whenever possible.

OK, we just disagree on the default policy, this is something we can
vote on.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070703/5c56fe29/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list