| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:27:54 -0800 |
| 6 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> Which is offset and more by the massive inconvenience of having to |
| 8 |
>>> keep track of and store junk under version control. |
| 9 |
>> I think you're making it out to be worse than it really is. Like I |
| 10 |
>> said, I think we have a justifiable exception to the rule. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> If you start encouraging this approach, are you prepared to make |
| 13 |
> Portage warn extremely noisily if a repository-provided (as opposed to |
| 14 |
> user generated) cache entry is found to be stale? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Sure. Otherwise, it's confusing for the user when dependency |
| 17 |
calculations take longer than usual for no apparent reason. |
| 18 |
- -- |
| 19 |
Thanks, |
| 20 |
Zac |
| 21 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 22 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkmPbV8ACgkQ/ejvha5XGaN24ACg9LFy8dag9/riCwODjknQV/Ic |
| 25 |
0koAn00PP5WJBo5UwMR6iATwfFOipTi6 |
| 26 |
=sOk8 |
| 27 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives