On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 08:48:29AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 05/05/25 at 22:14 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > In some cases, the bug is already known, because debian/rules > > has --max-parallel=1. Example: The alpine package. > > > > (I wonder how much feasible would be to skip those packages) > > The alpine package is indeed a good example of a package that makes > extensive use of the sequentiality of 'make', and that is going to be > hard to adjust to switch to parallel building or arbitrary orders. > > However I still think that there's value in filing bugs for such > packages, because --shuffle=reverse makes it much easier to debug such > issues: instead of trying a parallel build and getting a subtlely > different race conditions at each run, you get a reproducible ordering > that exhibits one issue that you can debug, and then move on to the next > issue. > > Also it's not trivial to distinguish between packages that do not build > in parallel on purpose, vs those that just happen not to build in > parallel (yet).
What is a maintainer supposed to do when the package already does "dh --no-parallel" and the upstream Makefiles are basically unfixable? Just close the bug? Strip "--shuffle" in debian/rules? How many of the packages that break with "make --shuffle" are currently doing parallel building? I am asking since these might be RC bugs for trixie. > Lucas cu Adrian
