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
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
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
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
On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò 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
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
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
On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 15:45 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh 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
