From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC09A138010 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:02:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E6EA4E01F1; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:02:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com (ironport2-out.teksavvy.com [206.248.154.182]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED18E00E9 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:01:16 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgwKAG6Zu09FpYyK/2dsb2JhbABEsnYDgRiBCIIVAQEEATocKAsLNAcLFCU3CRKHbgULuX6LCFqBRII8YgONPodchV+IOoFYgwU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,637,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="197430503" Received: from 69-165-140-138.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO waltdnes.org) ([69.165.140.138]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with SMTP; 04 Sep 2012 07:01:15 -0400 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 04 Sep 2012 07:00:41 -0400 From: "Walter Dnes" Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 07:00:41 -0400 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EJOBS variable for EAPI 5? (was: [RFC] Create a JOBS variable to replace -jX in MAKEOPTS) Message-ID: <20120904110041.GA19158@waltdnes.org> References: <20544.29691.208130.35494@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120831154521.5258c549@googlemail.com> <20120831111244.0c17b8aa@gentoo.org> <20120902002002.GB25302@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120902002002.GB25302@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: eb25d719-f8ef-4e05-b7a5-5af6d6697014 X-Archives-Hash: 236b959ff89cc32877803fe1a8d97d25 On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 05:20:02PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote > This approach is fine imo, although I'd *potentially* look at adding a > magic $PROC_COUNT var that is the # of cpu threads on the system; > either that or defaulting jobs to it. > > I rather dislike requiring users to go jam a 2/4/8 in there when it's > easy to compute. That said, it's minor. > > Either way, yes, I think EJOBS should be in EAPI5. One question about the suggested EJOBS variable; will it over-ride MAKEOPTS? Every so often on the Gentoo-user list, someone comes along with a mysterious build failure. The first suggestion is to reset MAKEOPTS to -j1. And on some occasions, that is indeed the solution to the mysterious build failure. Even the Gentoo manual agrees that the "CPUs + 1" rule-of-thumb doesn't always work... http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?full=1#installing_portagesays... > With MAKEOPTS you define how many parallel compilations should occur > when you install a package. A good choice is the number of CPUs > (or CPU cores) in your system plus one, ***BUT THIS GUIDELINE ISN'T > ALWAYS PERFECT.*** (emphasis mine) I set -j1 and leave it that way. Yes, the builds take longer, but the resulting binary is just as fast. And the amount of time I "save" will be blown away the first time I end up screwing around a couple of hours trying to fix a mysterious build failure. That's why I want the user to have the option of over-riding EJOBS, should it ever be implemented. -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications