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. -- Thanks, Zac
