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. Even the Gentoo manual agrees that the "CPUs + 1" rule-of-thumb doesn't always work... http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?full=1#installing_portagesays... > With MAKEOPTS you define how many parallel compilations should occur > when you install a package. A good choice is the number of CPUs > (or CPU cores) in your system plus one, ***BUT THIS GUIDELINE ISN'T > ALWAYS PERFECT.*** (emphasis mine) 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. -- Walter Dnes <waltd...@waltdnes.org> I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
