| 1 |
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:12:44AM -0400, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:45:21 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > Coming back to this old topic [1]. Is there still consensus that we |
| 8 |
> > > should have such an EJOBS variable? (It shouldn't be called JOBS |
| 9 |
> > > because this name is too generic, see the old discussion.) Then we |
| 10 |
> > > could add it to EAPI 5. |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > Ulrich |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > [1] |
| 15 |
> > > <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_750e33f68b16d971dff1f40dd9145e56.xml> |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > If we're doing this, do we tell users to stop setting MAKEOPTS for |
| 18 |
> > EAPIs 5 and greater? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> How can this work ? I cant think of any simple solution. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> > Do we change the name of MAKEOPTS for EAPIs 5 and |
| 23 |
> > greater instead? Do we put fancy code in the package mangler to deal |
| 24 |
> > with it? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> IMHO EAPI-5 compliant PMs should do MAKEOPTS="$MAKEOPTS -j$EJOBS" for |
| 27 |
> every EAPI; using EJOBS from ebuilds/eclasses is allowed only in EAPI 5 |
| 28 |
> and greater. |
| 29 |
> This is retroactive but could be classified 'PM internals' so its fine |
| 30 |
> imho. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
This approach is fine imo, although I'd *potentially* look at adding a |
| 33 |
magic $PROC_COUNT var that is the # of cpu threads on the system; |
| 34 |
either that or defaulting jobs to it. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I rather dislike requiring users to go jam a 2/4/8 in there when it's |
| 37 |
easy to compute. That said, it's minor. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Either way, yes, I think EJOBS should be in EAPI5. |
| 40 |
~harring |
Archives