On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:12:44AM -0400, Alexis Ballier wrote: > 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.
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. ~harring
