| 1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 05:15:53PM +0200, Philipp Riegger wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>On Apr 7, 2006, at 5:26 PM, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>>>We have a new cache format, confcache, parallel fetch, etc... The |
| 8 |
>>>bonus |
| 9 |
>>>is these features are already mature and relatively old ( a year + |
| 10 |
>>>as of |
| 11 |
>>>now ). |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>>Reading about confcache i have one question: |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>>When i saw, that this feature exists (in make.examples) i activated |
| 16 |
>>it. But it did not work because i had not emerged confcache. I think |
| 17 |
>>this check should be stricter, if i want confcache and have |
| 18 |
>>FEATURES="confcache" and confcache is not emerged, i think |
| 19 |
>>emerge ... should die, not just say "Ok, you said you want it but |
| 20 |
>>you don't have it, so i don't use it". What do you think about that? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Precedent is against you in this case...sandbox is the same way |
| 24 |
> (notify instead of bailing). |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Personally I prefer the "if I told you to do something, bail if you |
| 27 |
> can't" approach, but for features portage has usually done the |
| 28 |
> opposite. |
| 29 |
> ~harring |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Meh, past behavior is not really a great excuse here. If the majority |
| 32 |
thinks it sucks, then it can always be changed. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-Alec |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives