1 |
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:45:21 +0100 |
2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200 |
5 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > Coming back to this old topic [1]. Is there still consensus that we |
7 |
> > should have such an EJOBS variable? (It shouldn't be called JOBS |
8 |
> > because this name is too generic, see the old discussion.) Then we |
9 |
> > could add it to EAPI 5. |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Ulrich |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > [1] |
14 |
> > <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_750e33f68b16d971dff1f40dd9145e56.xml> |
15 |
> |
16 |
> If we're doing this, do we tell users to stop setting MAKEOPTS for |
17 |
> EAPIs 5 and greater? |
18 |
|
19 |
How can this work ? I cant think of any simple solution. |
20 |
|
21 |
> Do we change the name of MAKEOPTS for EAPIs 5 and |
22 |
> greater instead? Do we put fancy code in the package mangler to deal |
23 |
> with it? |
24 |
|
25 |
IMHO EAPI-5 compliant PMs should do MAKEOPTS="$MAKEOPTS -j$EJOBS" for |
26 |
every EAPI; using EJOBS from ebuilds/eclasses is allowed only in EAPI 5 |
27 |
and greater. |
28 |
This is retroactive but could be classified 'PM internals' so its fine |
29 |
imho. |
30 |
|
31 |
People using such a PM and not reading the news will get the old |
32 |
MAKEOPTS which will still work with makefile based build systems but |
33 |
will get serial builds for e.g. EAPI5 ebuilds + waf based build systems. |
34 |
Not a very big deal. |
35 |
|
36 |
A. |