Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 19. 06. 20 23:11, Ben Cotton wrote:
> All make invocations in spec files that don't use the install target will be
> modified to use the %make_build macro
Many Python packages build Sphinx documentation with variant of "make html".
Such invocation will always be just 1 job. Hence there is no benefit of parallel
make.
That's also the case in several Ada packages, where the makefile just
assembles the command line for a single invocation of GPRbuild, and
parallel compilation is handled by GPRbuild. I expect that there are
many other more or less special cases.
Replacing it with %make_build will only make it harder to read.
Especially in cases like "make check", where the purpose isn't to build
anything but to run a testsuite. The word "make" is already less than
ideal in those cases, and replacing it with the less well-known
"make_build" will make it more confusing.
Can we exclude such cases? Or do we want all make invocations to be
mecronized,
even if there is no benefit?
So I too want that question answered.
Also: Is it set in stone that "make_build" means "make in parallel"
and
nothing else? If so, why isn't the macro called "parallel_make"?
Or is it the case that "make_build" means "the typical make command to
use in a build stage", and a future version of the macro may include
other parameters that are considered useful in a build stage but may
not be appropriate for other use cases? In that case the macro should
only be applied in the %build section, and any make invocation that
looks less than typical should be left alone.
Björn Persson