| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Since not all the buildsystem we support use make for the actual |
| 4 |
> build, and they don't necessarily support make-like options (-jX -s |
| 5 |
> and so on), it would be nice to be able to express a JOBS variable |
| 6 |
> that could be used for parallel build with any build systems. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Right now there are ebuilds like openoffice or some scons-based |
| 9 |
> ebuilds that parse MAKEOPTS and get out of that the number of jobs |
| 10 |
> from the -j option, but this is a) suboptimal b) error-prone. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> One has to consider people might be using -l for parallel building |
| 13 |
> too, for which reasons I'd be suggesting doing something like this to |
| 14 |
> make the change transparent: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> - ebuilds using non-make build systems would use JOBS; |
| 17 |
> - ebuilds using make builds systems would just use emake as usual; |
| 18 |
> - Portage takes care, if JOBS is unset, to parse it out of MAKEOPTS; |
| 19 |
> - if user has set JOBS but not MAKEOPTS this defaults to -j${JOBS}; |
| 20 |
> - if user has JOBS and MAKEOPTS, MAKEOPTS keeps the same (for -l). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> The result is that you can finally combine -l with parallel build on |
| 23 |
> OpenOffice and other packages, with a fallback number of maximum jobs |
| 24 |
> instead of using load-based decisions. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Coming back to this old topic [1]. Is there still consensus that we |
| 27 |
should have such an EJOBS variable? (It shouldn't be called JOBS because |
| 28 |
this name is too generic, see the old discussion.) Then we could add it |
| 29 |
to EAPI 5. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Ulrich |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
[1] <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_750e33f68b16d971dff1f40dd9145e56.xml> |
Archives