nALFS & make -j
Kevin P. Fleming
kpfleming at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Jan 15 15:32:22 PST 2004
> <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