edwin at mavetju.org
Sat Nov 26 05:59:48 EST 2005
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 01:30:34PM -0500, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 15:10 +1100, Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> > > > - phase 2 build still goes on even if phase 1 has failed. Specially
> > > > for ports which takes seven days to compile, this is a waste of
> > > > time.
> > >
> > > This is by design. The phase 2 build is there to catch transient build
> > > problems that may have occurred in phase 1. A patch to conditionally
> > > disable phase 2 would be entertained.
> > What kind of transient build errors are you thinking about?
> ccache errors relating to NFS, coredumps, etc. On my i386 box on which
> I use NFS, phase 2 comes in very handy.
If it are these kind of errors, shouldn't phase 2 then not only be
started when phase 1 somehow fails? Doing it a second time for "just
in case something went wrong in the first run" sounds like such a
waste of time then if it went right the first time.
Unless of course Phase 2 does do something else than phase 1.
Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org
edwin at mavetju.org | Weblog: http://weblog.barnet.com.au/edwin/
More information about the tinderbox-list