Summary: | portage build only one package at a time after binutils during emerge -e system | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Cănărău Constantin <canarauc> |
Component: | [OLD] Unspecified | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | AMD64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: |
log of emerge --jobs=3 --load-average=4 --keep-going -e system
emerge --info for my desktop system |
Description
Cănărău Constantin
2009-07-25 13:16:23 UTC
What is the list of packages that were emerged after binutils? Maybe there were too many interdependencies among that particular set of packages, and it was not able to parallelize well. Created attachment 199277 [details]
log of emerge --jobs=3 --load-average=4 --keep-going -e system
Created attachment 199279 [details]
emerge --info for my desktop system
I'm unable to do another emerge system for my test server because it's busy for next days. But the error it's also reproductible on my desktop system, also, somehow, a test system. I attached emerge --info and log of emerge system for it. In desktop case lot of dependencies are plausible due to a long list of use flag. However there are ~400 packages built one at a time. Please ask for any supplementary info, if required. Ok, time to turn this over to portage team. They may request more info, but I can't think of anything else for now. BTW removing you from cc list -- as reporter of bug, you'll get emails without being on cc. As said in comment #1, the behavior you observe is probably due to interdependencies. It's possible that we could add an option to make it more aggressive, so that packages are built before their dependencies when possible. Also note that bug 256616 and bug 259954 also place limits on parallelization. This is mentioned in the faq: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/doc/faq.xml You are probably right. It's a little uncomfortable, but I can live with it. I suggest to close the bug if nobody observe this behavior during a week, this report proved to be an isolated case. Thank you. I've filed bug 279623 for the aggressive --jobs parallelization idea mentioned in comment #6. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 279623 *** |