From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C194F158064 for ; Mon, 13 May 2024 14:00:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B94F3E2A8B; Mon, 13 May 2024 14:00:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E773E2A75 for ; Mon, 13 May 2024 14:00:36 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 16:00:31 +0200 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] cargo.eclass: Optimize crate unpacking To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= References: <20240512022603.48576-1-mgorny@gentoo.org> <6c25db91-4a22-48d5-b639-8009487fb7bf@gentoo.org> <849a540bd028ac0fed47c75c71ecf077f703c28d.camel@gentoo.org> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Florian Schmaus In-Reply-To: <849a540bd028ac0fed47c75c71ecf077f703c28d.camel@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: eb97fc59-192e-4469-b39f-02c68ef9106e X-Archives-Hash: 28dfa5690cadeecb8e5bfb5178cedca6 On 12/05/2024 20.21, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 2024-05-12 at 19:22 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote: >> On 12/05/2024 04.26, Michał Górny wrote: >>> + if [[ ${PKGBUMPING} != ${PVR} ]]; then >>> + pushd "${DISTDIR}" >/dev/null || die >>> + >>> + ebegin "Unpacking crates" >>> + printf '%s\0' "${crates[@]}" | >>> + xargs -0 -P "$(makeopts_jobs)" -n 1 -- \ >> >> Consider using get_makeopts_jobs instead of makeopts_jobs, as it >> searches more variables for --jobs. > > Whose bright idea was to add a second similarly named function that does > roughly the same thing but apparently differently? It can hardly get > more confusing. You are absolutely right, it sucks that we have two very similar methods. You are invited to suggest how the situation can be improved. However, rambling without presenting alternatives is not helpful in any way. Potentially, you will either discover that there is a reason why things are the way they are, or find a better solution. - Flow