IRC Logs for #crux-devel Thursday, 2012-01-19

*** mike_k has joined #crux-devel03:42
*** horrorStruck has joined #crux-devel05:55
horrorStruckjue: don't you need symlinks in kmod for full compatability?05:56
juehorrorStruck: sure, the port isn't suitable as a replacement for util-linux06:34
horrorStruckbut it's supposed to be exactly that, no ?06:36
jueyes, it should be sometimes06:36
horrorStrucki'm using it ATM, modules are properly loaded, options in /etc/modprobe.d/*.conf aren't but i didnt really try to find out why so far06:38
horrorStruckbut i'm using symlinks06:38
juedon't take my port too serious, it's just a way to build the kmod binary06:38
horrorStruckok :)06:39
*** horrorStruck has quit IRC08:15
*** horrorStruck has joined #crux-devel08:17
*** mike_k has quit IRC11:37
jaegerWhat would be the best way to remove -j options from Makeflags for ports that fail when using -j?11:46
jaegersince the format could be -jX or -j X, etc.11:46
jaegerfor extra oddness, openssl worked fine with -j4, openssl-32 fails every time with -j4 or -j811:48
teK_jaeger: MAKEFLAGS11:49
teK_    export MAKEFLAGS="$MAKEFLAGS -j1"11:49
teK_taken from core/openssl11:49
jaegerah, missed it in openssl, hrmm11:49
jaegerI guess that's the safest way but feels ugly to me11:49
jaegerhowever, it's less overhead and doing the proper sed work to remove -jX or -j X11:49
jaegercan't type again today, bleh11:50
teK_it's perfect.. latst option wins :)11:52
jaegerinteresting to note that MAKEFLAGS="-jX" overrides "make -j1"11:53
teK_feels wrong, yes11:58
*** mike_k has joined #crux-devel12:36
*** mike_k has quit IRC15:43
*** acrux has quit IRC17:53
*** acrux has joined #crux-devel17:55
*** acrux has joined #crux-devel17:55
*** acrux|G4 has joined #crux-devel19:00
Romsterjaeger, see contrib/boost on how i handle the j option19:40
jaegerI did look at that20:06
*** mavrick61 has quit IRC21:23
*** mavrick61 has joined #crux-devel21:24

Generated by 2.11.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!