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 changes. > 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
Attachment:
pgpuIOKG2hc3T.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
