Re: MAKE_JOBS_ARG

On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 09:43:52AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
 > This isn't really about whether MAKE_JOBS -- the number of threads that
 > should happen -- should be "used" or not.  That's what MAKE_JOBS_SAFE=no
 > means -- that while the user wants to use MAKE_JOBS=n, this package
 > won't do that.
 > 
 > The new variable is about whether a particular argument expressing that
 > value should be included in a call to the build step or not.
 > 
 > We could have
 > 
 >   MAKE_JOBS_METHOD
 > 
 > as a package-settable variable which defines the manner in which
 > MAKE_JOBS is expressed to the build.  Default would be "argj", which
 > adds -jN to the make stage, and could be "no" to indicate that the
 > package has code to pass it in some other way.  More precisely, "no"
 > means that the code in mk should not try to add any arguments about
 > MAKE_JOBS.
 > 
 > If we find common idioms, those could get a name, and the code to set it
 > that way be hoisted to mk/.  This could be useful for go, except that go
 > already centralizes the logic in a go mk file that is included by go
 > programs.  But as people keep inventing build systems they think are
 > better, while making interfaces gratuitously different, I'm sure we'll
 > need more!

I would swear we already went through this a year or two ago, because
I remember concerns about whether it should be -jN (required by some
tools) or -j N (required by others)...

...but I can't find the evidence :-|

-- 
David A. Holland
[email protected]