[arch-general] arch-general Digest, Vol 110, Issue 18

Mark Lee mark at markelee.com
Tue Dec 31 22:56:40 EST 2013

On Tue, 2013-12-31 at 22:33 -0500, arch-general-request at archlinux.org
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 19:39:03 +0100
> Thomas B?chler <thomas at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > Really? Who?
> Hmm, me. Intel atom here...
> > You are suggesting not changing to a sane default because some
> packages
> > (especially in the AUR) have crappy maintainers. That's hardly a
> reason
> > for anything.
> A sane default would probably be $(nproc)-1. But in general, is it a
> good
> idea to have calls to binaries in a config file? So far, makepkg.conf
> doesn't
> have anything like this.
> Happy new year,
> Leonid.

What if there is one core? What would be the output of make -j0?

If makepkg.conf is to avoid binary calls, where else could this be
placed? Would it be added directly to /usr/bin/makepkg as a flag that
can be toggled in makepkg.conf?


Mark Lee <mark at markelee.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20131231/086feef1/attachment.asc>

More information about the arch-general mailing list