Re: [Libreoffice] [PATCH] Renaming extension options consistently

On 10/11/10 07:05, Sebastian Spaeth wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:29:34 +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
> > > 1) if the user specifies max-cpus, do we want max-jobs to default to
> > > max-cpus? Because that does make sense afaict.
> > The buildsystem is a bit strange in this regard ;-)  There are 2 levels
> > of what is done in parallel - one on the level of directories, and one
> > on what is done in the directory itself.  Ie. if you did what you
> > propose, you'd get max-cpus * max-jobs in the 'ideal' situation.
Hmm... I understand what you're saying, but that actually seems not to
be my experience. "cpus=4" would bring my machine (AthlonX3) to a
standstill, while "cpus=3, jobs=3" results in an "always responsive"
system ... Oh well ... I ought to document it at least, and then we'll
see what happens.

> We might explain that a bit better in the configure help text. I always
> forget which is the exquivalent to "make -j n". Perhaps in the brave gnu
> (make) world, we can simplify that to one switch?
>  
> > > 2) why is the system so keen on ice-cream? Is it because it's a java
> > > technology? I note it's incompatible with distcc (which is what I've
> > > got, and which isn't much use without a pc farm).
> > >
> > > I've noticed other people moaning about ice-cream so should we remove
> > > all the "why haven't you got it?" stuff, or just disable it if distcc
> > > is installed?
> +1 for quiet down the icecream advertisment a bit, we should rather put
> instructions for that in our wiki. If someone configured to use distcc,
> we should not output icecream related stuff at all. So who comes up with
> a patch :-)?
Looks like it's up to me then :-)

Cheers,
Wol