On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:45:21 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:21:15 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> 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] > > <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_750e33f68b16d971dff1f40dd9145e56.xml> > > If we're doing this, do we tell users to stop setting MAKEOPTS for > EAPIs 5 and greater? How can this work ? I cant think of any simple solution. > 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? IMHO EAPI-5 compliant PMs should do MAKEOPTS="$MAKEOPTS -j$EJOBS" for every EAPI; using EJOBS from ebuilds/eclasses is allowed only in EAPI 5 and greater. This is retroactive but could be classified 'PM internals' so its fine imho. People using such a PM and not reading the news will get the old MAKEOPTS which will still work with makefile based build systems but will get serial builds for e.g. EAPI5 ebuilds + waf based build systems. Not a very big deal. A.
