| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 31/08/12 12:08 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 31/08/12 11:27 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 15:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200 Ulrich Mueller |
| 8 |
>>> <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
>>>> Coming back to this old topic [1]. Is there still consensus |
| 10 |
>>>> that we should have such an EJOBS variable? (It shouldn't be |
| 11 |
>>>> called JOBS because this name is too generic, see the old |
| 12 |
>>>> discussion.) Then we could add it to EAPI 5. |
| 13 |
>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>> Ulrich |
| 15 |
>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>> [1] |
| 17 |
>>>> <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_750e33f68b16d971dff1f40dd9145e56.xml> |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>>> |
| 20 |
>>>> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>>>> |
| 23 |
If we're doing this, do we tell users to stop setting MAKEOPTS for |
| 24 |
>>> EAPIs 5 and greater? Do we change the name of MAKEOPTS for |
| 25 |
>>> EAPIs 5 and greater instead? Do we put fancy code in the |
| 26 |
>>> package mangler to deal with it? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
>> Users typically set MAKEOPTS systemwide in /etc/make.conf. If |
| 29 |
>> EJOBS will have no effect for <EAPI5 ebuilds, then obviously we |
| 30 |
>> should not be advising users to stop using MAKEOPTS until the |
| 31 |
>> whole tree has migrated to EAPI5. And if EJOBS will be recognized |
| 32 |
>> by a future version of portage for all EAPIs, then we still |
| 33 |
>> should allow MAKEOPTS because some users may want to use |
| 34 |
>> --load-average. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
>> Changing the name of MAKEOPTS in >=EAPI5 makes no sense. First, |
| 37 |
>> because it's a standard environment variable used by gnu make. |
| 38 |
>> Second, because having 3 different settings for parallel |
| 39 |
>> building (EJOBS, MAKEOPTS, and "MAKEOPTS_EAPI5") would be |
| 40 |
>> insane. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
>> Fancy code in the package manager would be the way to go IMHO. |
| 43 |
>> Ulrich's message contains a reasonable description of the |
| 44 |
>> algorithm. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
>> -Alexandre. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> I think, if i read the previous response to this correctly, that |
| 49 |
> the suggestion isn't the removal of MAKEOPTS, but simply that the |
| 50 |
> '-j' specification currently set in MAKEOPTS should instead be set |
| 51 |
> in EJOBS in everyone's make.conf. This would then be appended to |
| 52 |
> MAKEOPTS (for all EAPI) -and- be used for non-make build systems |
| 53 |
> (for EAPI>=5) alike. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
..hit send to soon... |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
So if users stick with setting -j in MAKEOPTS, then in EAPI=5 and |
| 60 |
above this would only affect make-based builds; for parallel |
| 61 |
compilation in non-make builds they would need to convert to using |
| 62 |
EJOBS for EAPI=5 and above, otherwise those build systems will compile |
| 63 |
serially instead of in parallel. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 70 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlBA4jQACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAFrAEArp7MM5w4Mv/TLKb058HzB9oN |
| 73 |
NtQeSVoCQ8X5PuxjjJ0BAKbTJXEkLlZ0hMr09RyTKzK0XtdQq6cf2fbeFFgFb5eV |
| 74 |
=+vtW |
| 75 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives