Hi On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 6:55 AM, Paul Gideon Dann <pdgiddie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday 03 Jan 2014 15:33:05 Martti Kühne wrote: >> Because I have a strong opinion about this. Also to prevent people >> from running into this who are not that experienced in making things >> work. > > If someone makes more than a few packages, they will have encountered makepkg.conf, to > at least set their e-mail address. When I started using Arch, I think I discovered > makepkg.conf and added the -j to makeflags pretty much on day one of experimenting with > PKGBUILDs. But I think it comes down to this: > > 1) If someone knows that the -j flag exists, it won't take them long to figure out how to add > it to makeflags, and then the responsibility is with them to ensure they know it can (rarely!) > break some builds. > > 2) If the -j flag is added by default, builds may break unpredictably, and users will not know > why. They may not be aware of -j, and may not make the connection to makepkg.conf at all. > > Option 1 seems a safer default to me. However, I think this should be properly documented > in makepkg.conf: there should be an actual suggestion to add -j, along with a warning that > in rare cases it may cause breakage. Just a single-line comment, possibly with a link to the > wiki, would be enough. But there always will be people who uses -jN (e.g. me). If we decide to keep broken PKGBUILD in AUR forever then it means sooner or later -jN people will be hit by this issues. So the choice is really: 1) Keep the broken packages forever and care only about -j1 people (who is majority now). 2) Make -jN by default. It will speedup compilation but it also make the broken packages more visible. IMHO #2 is better. It is better to highlight all the broken PKGBUILD and fix it thus make it working for everyone.
