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 62090138010 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4ACF1E04C2; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:16:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A4A5E0459 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:15:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.42.160] (staff-wireless.saddleback.edu [209.129.85.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C393733D761 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 17:15:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50463738.7000209@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 10:15:36 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120901 Thunderbird/15.0 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> <20120831111244.0c17b8aa@gentoo.org> <20120902002002.GB25302@localhost> <20120904110041.GA19158@waltdnes.org> In-Reply-To: <20120904110041.GA19158@waltdnes.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 72c5ca72-7bbe-44d0-83e8-ceb62cb261fe X-Archives-Hash: 9b236a67ddbd5b3296b4d76ad362c3bd On 09/04/2012 04:00 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: > 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. That would be due to a missing dependency in the Makefiles, and using -j1 is just a workaround. The ebuild can be hardcoded to use emake -j1 until the Makefile gets fixed. > 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. You could use EXTRA_EMAKE for that. You can do per-package settings via /etc/portage/package.env. -- Thanks, Zac