Re: lockf in installworld -- not a good idea

In message: <20060929172657.Q74256_at_fledge.watson.org>
            Robert Watson <rwatson_at_FreeBSD.org> writes:
: 
: On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Warner Losh wrote:
: 
: >> For what its worth.... I'd go with just stopping support for -j in 
: >> installworld, even if things are CPU bound.
: >
: > installworld should *NEVER* be done -j.  Ever.  That wasn't part of the 
: > installworld bargin when it was started.  There's no point to it at all. 
: > As such, any support to make it work should be removed with extreme 
: > prejustice.  Why on earth would you want to do installworld -j?
: 
: I wouldn't doubt that it's at least marginally faster, possibly a
: bit faster, but I think I come down pretty firmly on the side of
: "let's make installworld as simple and reliable as possible" --
: breaking in the middle of installworld can have messy consequences,
: and we should minimize the chances of that as much as possible.

I tend to agree with that basic philosophy.  From other items in the
thread, it was clear this came up in the context of build release,
which benefits from -j usually.  The installworld phase in that should
be as robust as possible as well, since otherwise we have issues with
the actual release.  Unless it is a big win (more than a few percent),
I'd imagine the right fix is to the release target to not do a
parallel installworld.  I know that in the build scripts that I wrote
in 3.x days and have ported forward since then I've never done a
parallel install, due to it rarely working reliably in that (long)
time span...

Warner