| 1 |
On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:50:25 +0100 |
| 2 |
"vivo75@×××××.com" <vivo75@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Il 15/01/2015 11:30, Alexis Ballier ha scritto: |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:20:15 +0000 (UTC) |
| 6 |
> > Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> Christopher Head <chead@×××××.ca> wrote: |
| 9 |
> >>> All that requires is knowing the names, though; it would be |
| 10 |
> >>> fine if no package actually uses the feature yet. |
| 11 |
> >> ++ |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> >> More precisely: When changing the names anyway, |
| 14 |
> >> IMHO it would be a very good idea to follow the convention of the |
| 15 |
> >> "flag" names in /proc/cpuinfo and add all flags supported |
| 16 |
> >> there as possible USE-flags, no matter, whether they are currently |
| 17 |
> >> used in some package or not. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > seriously ? |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > $ grep flags /proc/cpuinfo | head -n 1 | wc -w |
| 22 |
> > 94 |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Actually I like the idea, there are performances problems related to |
| 26 |
> ebuilds or portage? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
it is not about performance but rather about writing the proper .desc |
| 30 |
file; i don't think this will ever happen if nobody baking up the idea |
| 31 |
comes with such a file |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Alexis. |
Archives