[arch-general] arch-general Digest, Vol 110, Issue 18
Pedro Emílio Machado de Brito
pedroembrito at gmail.com
Wed Jan 1 02:08:26 EST 2014
É quase como se as coisas de cada planeta se fortificassem a toa. Cada
decisão errada deles costa sangue. Estaremos acostumados.
Enviado do meu dispositivo de rastreamento
Em 01/01/2014 01:56, "Mark Lee" <mark at markelee.com> escreveu:
> 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>
More information about the arch-general