Re: [gentoo-dev] EJOBS variable for EAPI 5? (was: [RFC] Create a JOBS variable to replace -jX in MAKEOPTS)

[Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1536 bytes --]

On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 15:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Coming back to this old topic [1]. Is there still consensus that we
> > should have such an EJOBS variable? (It shouldn't be called JOBS
> > because this name is too generic, see the old discussion.) Then we
> > could add it to EAPI 5.
> > 
> > Ulrich
> > 
> > [1]
> > <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_750e33f68b16d971dff1f40dd9145e56.xml>
> 
> If we're doing this, do we tell users to stop setting MAKEOPTS for
> EAPIs 5 and greater? Do we change the name of MAKEOPTS for EAPIs 5 and
> greater instead? Do we put fancy code in the package mangler to deal
> with it?

Users typically set MAKEOPTS systemwide in /etc/make.conf. If EJOBS will
have no effect for <EAPI5 ebuilds, then obviously we should not be
advising users to stop using MAKEOPTS until the whole tree has migrated
to EAPI5. And if EJOBS will be recognized by a future version of portage
for all EAPIs, then we still should allow MAKEOPTS because some users
may want to use --load-average.

Changing the name of MAKEOPTS in >=EAPI5 makes no sense. First, because
it's a standard environment variable used by gnu make. Second, because
having 3 different settings for parallel building (EJOBS, MAKEOPTS, and
"MAKEOPTS_EAPI5") would be insane.

Fancy code in the package manager would be the way to go IMHO. Ulrich's
message contains a reasonable description of the algorithm.

-Alexandre.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]