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 E32FA138010 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:10:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DD7EDE0663; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:10:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17460E00C2 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:08:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.145] (CPE002401f30b73-CM001cea3ddad8.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.240.69.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F96D33D92F for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:08:37 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5040E185.8090004@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:08:37 -0400 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.6esrpre) Gecko/20120731 Thunderbird/10.0.6 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] EJOBS variable for EAPI 5? References: <20544.29691.208130.35494@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120831154521.5258c549@googlemail.com> <1346426879.9013.18.camel@rook> In-Reply-To: <1346426879.9013.18.camel@rook> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 9b042914-4152-4efc-adad-732f215fa692 X-Archives-Hash: 60c871df3fd97dd262df14c62ca47d1a -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 31/08/12 11:27 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 15:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200 Ulrich Mueller >> 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] >>> >> >> >>> 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 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. I think, if i read the previous response to this correctly, that the suggestion isn't the removal of MAKEOPTS, but simply that the '-j' specification currently set in MAKEOPTS should instead be set in EJOBS in everyone's make.conf. This would then be appended to MAKEOPTS (for all EAPI) -and- be used for non-make build systems (for EAPI>=5) alike. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlBA4YUACgkQ2ugaI38ACPD96gD+Pu9f9SVG//0yhioO0LGP/W8o sIGpiMFIEddXvhUsDAwA/0EJkZF8jrN7zmt/LdZy3nlCGKTIkPNxp5ukUGDDWIJB =Dlem -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----