В Птн, 05/12/2008 в 08:23 +0100, Rémi Cardona пишет:
Le 05/12/2008 05:33, Joe Peterson a écrit :
How about PORTAGE_JOBS to go along with PORTAGE_OVERLAY,
PORTAGE_NICENESS, etc.
While this part of the thread has a lot of bikeshedding potential, Joe's
name sounds more consistent with what
Peter Volkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This variable will be used in eclasses so it's better to avoid portage
in it's name, since not only portage will work with it. GENTOO_JOBS is
really something new in sense of consistency. EJOBS looks most terse for
me but I'll be ok with any name...
Diego 'Flameeyes' =?utf-8?Q?Petten=C3=B2?= wrote:
Since not all the buildsystem we support use make for the actual build,
and they don't necessarily support make-like options (-jX -s and so on),
it would be nice to be able to express a JOBS variable that could be
used for parallel build with
Tiziano Müller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What do you do for other build systems which also decide on load-basis
how many jobs to run? Parse again?
In that case I'd like to see a more abstract definition of how many
jobs to run in parallel which gets translated to the correct
make-options for
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Looks Good To Me, but I would prefix the JOBS variable with some sort
of namespace (EJOBS, GENTOO_JOBS, etc.) to avoid conflicts with other
systems that may use JOBS internally already (seems vaguely likely).
Good point, GENTOO_JOBS sounds good to me.
--
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Looks Good To Me, but I would prefix the JOBS variable with some sort
of namespace (EJOBS, GENTOO_JOBS, etc.) to avoid conflicts with other
systems that may use JOBS internally already (seems vaguely likely).
Good
Le 05/12/2008 05:33, Joe Peterson a écrit :
How about PORTAGE_JOBS to go along with PORTAGE_OVERLAY,
PORTAGE_NICENESS, etc.
While this part of the thread has a lot of bikeshedding potential, Joe's
name sounds more consistent with what we already have.
Naming issues appart, it's a good idea.
