From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SyN1f-0006az-JE for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:07:15 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q76CtWEi027931; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:55:32 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 27818-01; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:55:28 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q76CtNer027925 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:55:24 +0100 Message-ID: <1344257725.9756.147.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:55:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1344205948.3541.2.camel@lenny> References: <9ed1d4d30aeac33273968b00c0b5afab059bbc0f.1343964466.git.wenzong.fan@windriver.com> <1344205948.3541.2.camel@lenny> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: Zhenfeng.Zhao@windriver.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] gdk-pixbuf: fix parallel install issue X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 13:07:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 2012-08-05 at 18:32 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 11:30 +0800, wenzong.fan@windriver.com wrote: > > > Make an explicit dependency to the libs install targets would fix this > > issue. > > I don't think Yocto should be running the 'make install' target with > parallelism enabled; it's just going to be a source of major pain for > small gain. Historically Automake's install targets have had a lot of > paralleism issues AIUI, even discarding modules which have custom > install hooks. We did used to steer clear of this but more recently tested it out and with a few exceptions (which we disabled with PARALLEL_MAKEINST=""), parallel make install seems to work fine and did give a small but measurable speed-up (I'd have to look at the archives to remember what). It helps that we use the latest automake everywhere and regenerate all the makefiles ourselves. So whilst I agree with this from a historical perspective, times so seem to be changing and improving. If there are issues I do want to know about and deal with them though. Cheers, Richard