nALFS & make -j

Kevin P. Fleming kpfleming at
Thu Jan 15 15:32:22 PST 2004

uriah wrote:

> <devils advocate>
> Wouldn't such an event usualy signify a loss of stability in the package's
> codebase, causeing one to wonder why such was put into a non-development
> release of LFS?  Or could it signify that what was thought to be stable was
> actualy just a fluke? That alone should be more of a reason to put it in than
> to take it out.
> </devils advocate>

Not at all. Package maintainers are free to modify their package's build 
system whenever they want; if they did not previously commit to "always 
support make -j", and they make a change that has a side effect of 
breaking that style of build, that's not a "loss of stability" at all. 
That would not affect entry into the LFS book, nor would it even mandate 
a "fix" from the maintainer (although I'm sure they'd consider it). The 
ability to use make -j or not is not critical to the building of a 
package, and it should not change the resulting output from the build, 
other than the time required to get there.

And yes, you might assume that "make -j" _not_ causing problems for a 
particular package means it's OK, but that may very well be a fluke; 
given a different build environment, different hardware, etc., make -j 
may very well fail for a different user.

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list