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 87E33138010 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:37:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8185721C05A; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:37:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ee0-f53.google.com (mail-ee0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD9921C058 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:36:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by eekb47 with SMTP id b47so606560eek.40 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:36:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6YvDG/CBYMhNvmftlKu4wnYBjv+snJ0trFhaWkI6VAA=; b=rdJHfG/AgIZL+rV7SaEmrfgkgHhoz7FHzAR2f9ZiVVoahx2vvIdoaB7OIB4wEHADz/ WRgtTfb+beN7WT4Kf0wDvbmZ9bf5LYiuxFotzJJuqDtbPb5F20Z2VSekK/Yc7Zc8qzNE bDRj+qCr/4sXnR5qOz6h2B2kuFzuAaRb/5+6SB1LytGVx8C0SqgRxbstZ8zPgQ9mGxSR rc6kS5ze0TsspqyFQHQyRDiZmg0PQUbZ8sSxZmriuAPVtjxlX+wiGsdjD0dA3MNXaSpl 59GHrz6SNpXRN32GhI43z0Jn+aLCOxDK1HsaxgHkC3/aT/3sKy21Usna9iUQVUKOoKiz ltbA== Received: by 10.14.219.198 with SMTP id m46mr26369155eep.18.1347381383929; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:1418:211::2:18? ([2001:1418:211::2:18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u8sm48506621eel.11.2012.09.11.09.36.21 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <504F6884.9000201@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:36:20 +0200 From: "vivo75@gmail.com" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.6esrpre) Gecko/20120809 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 CC: Zac Medico 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> <50463738.7000209@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <50463738.7000209@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 477e0a78-b620-4a58-a73f-4f70694e5f29 X-Archives-Hash: 1da3983f1f9f9e4ae99b4a2f0160ad94 Il 04/09/2012 19:15, Zac Medico ha scritto: > 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. Dunno where to place this request, but if we go for something like EJOBS could we also make it phase specific? So compile, install and test could have a different number of jobs running. Possibly three different variables that override a predefined EJOBS. TIA