| 1 |
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 15:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Coming back to this old topic [1]. Is there still consensus that we |
| 5 |
> > should have such an EJOBS variable? (It shouldn't be called JOBS |
| 6 |
> > because this name is too generic, see the old discussion.) Then we |
| 7 |
> > could add it to EAPI 5. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Ulrich |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > [1] |
| 12 |
> > <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_750e33f68b16d971dff1f40dd9145e56.xml> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> If we're doing this, do we tell users to stop setting MAKEOPTS for |
| 15 |
> EAPIs 5 and greater? Do we change the name of MAKEOPTS for EAPIs 5 and |
| 16 |
> greater instead? Do we put fancy code in the package mangler to deal |
| 17 |
> with it? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Users typically set MAKEOPTS systemwide in /etc/make.conf. If EJOBS will |
| 20 |
have no effect for <EAPI5 ebuilds, then obviously we should not be |
| 21 |
advising users to stop using MAKEOPTS until the whole tree has migrated |
| 22 |
to EAPI5. And if EJOBS will be recognized by a future version of portage |
| 23 |
for all EAPIs, then we still should allow MAKEOPTS because some users |
| 24 |
may want to use --load-average. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Changing the name of MAKEOPTS in >=EAPI5 makes no sense. First, because |
| 27 |
it's a standard environment variable used by gnu make. Second, because |
| 28 |
having 3 different settings for parallel building (EJOBS, MAKEOPTS, and |
| 29 |
"MAKEOPTS_EAPI5") would be insane. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Fancy code in the package manager would be the way to go IMHO. Ulrich's |
| 32 |
message contains a reasonable description of the algorithm. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-Alexandre. |
Archives