Hello, On pirmadienis 30 Lapkritis 2009 21:50:09 you wrote: > > On antradienis 24 Lapkritis 2009 00:32:09 Modestas Vainius wrote: > > > What is more, now optional argument to --max-parallel makes sense (i.e. > > > "unlimited parallel") again. I don't want to specify --max-parallel=-1 > > > anywhere, --max-parallel looks better. The attached patch also includes > > > re- evaluated test suite and minor debhelper.pod update. > > > > Will you merge it or should I start adding --max-parallel=-1 in my > > packages? > > "--max-parallel" does not clearly say that any level of parallelism is > allowed, to me. > > (--max-parallel=-1 should not be used as it is not a documented part of > the interface.)
Hmm, what interface? Aren't you confusing --max-parallel=-1 with
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=parallel=-1 (that truly isn't documented)?
Then how do you suggest me to allow unlimited jobs by not imposing some
artificial big number on jobs? I fail to see how --max-parallel=99999 looks
better?
Even policy suggests "unlimited maximum jobs" by default (that's exact what
this snippet does) :
ifneq (,$(filter parallel=%,$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
NUMJOBS = $(patsubst parallel=%,%,$(filter parallel=%,
$(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
MAKEFLAGS += -j$(NUMJOBS)
endif
--
Modestas Vainius <modes...@vainius.eu>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
