On Thursday 27 September 2007, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Thursday 27 September 2007, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> > > could there be side effects setting MAKEOPTS in the ebuild (in
> > > global scope)?
> >
> > you should only be incrementing, never setting ... anything that sets
> > it is broken while anything that increments it is considered bad
> > form, but currently overlooked due to a better solution lacking
> > iow, wrong:
> > MAKEOPTS="-j1"
> > currently overlooked:
> > MAKEOPTS="${MAKEOPTS} -j1"
>
> Ok, so the latter saves me from repeating all standard functions with
> emake -j1. Thanks.sorry, i'll be a bit more specific ... the reason appending MAKEOPTS has been sliding is due to the large volume of gnome ebuilds and integrated eclasses ... it isnt trivial to pass that information along since the emake happens in nested eclasses, so MAKEOPTS gets incremented in the ebuild if you're doing it to avoid -j1 in like two calls to emake, that's poor taste :p also, any package that fails -j1 building should have an open bug about it ... parallel building isnt something to be workedaround with -j1 and then ignored as it can severely screw people (consider systems that have a crap ton of slow procs -- common for mips people) -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
