On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 06:02, Ryan Hill <dirtye...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sat, 04 Dec 2010 03:29:45 +0100 > Diego Elio Pettenò <flamee...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Il giorno ven, 03/12/2010 alle 19.46 -0600, Ryan Hill ha scritto: >> > >> > This has come up enough times that we should write some common code. >> >> Or resume the idea to simply provide a separate variable for >> number-of-jobs rather than relying purely on MAKEOPTS. > > That's not a bad idea, but I think we'd still need to fall back to MAKEOPTS > parsing if that variable was not set.
This has been discussed here two years ago, to the day. But unfortunately the discussion didn't when to a decision [1]. I filled a QA tracker bug [2] to summarize the proposed solutions, and re-open the discussion. In my opinion, just filtering out the --load-average option, and keeping the --jobs value is *bad*, as I putted it with serious reasons (detailed in the tracker). So I wonder if I can have a setting saying "if that build system cannot adapt to the current load, then I want a --jobs value of 1, or 2, but not 4"? As having SCONSOPTS WAFOPTS ANTOPTS CMAKEOPTS and so on variables is a ugly solution, and would require a lot of eclasses to be changed, I chose the fallback of having a empty MAKEOPTS, and to rely on portage's --jobs and --load-average options. 1 http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_750e33f68b16d971dff1f40dd9145e56.xml 2 https://bugs.gentoo.org/337831 -- Cyprien Nicolas Gentoo Lisp Project contributor Fulax on #gentoo-lisp
