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