| 1 |
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@g.o> writes: |
| 2 |
> Stuart Herbert <stuart@g.o> writes: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Like I said, it would only have to ask for information that wasn't available |
| 5 |
>> from the cache of answers. Provided there was a tool to pre-edit the cache - |
| 6 |
>> something I suggested earlier - then your scenarios would work. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I would agree with Marius in saying that ebuilds should not by default |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> I dislike the idea of a cache because it makes the configuration data |
| 11 |
> more obscure to the user. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
In fact the idea of cache is extremely bad. It would create something |
| 14 |
like global registry of settings which will overwrite my grand setup at |
| 15 |
every emerge. No thank you. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I think I like non-interactive emerge a lot, but I would like it to |
| 18 |
present all requests for configurations etc in more coherent way. For |
| 19 |
instance they should be gathered in a single log or, even better, send |
| 20 |
to the end of the whole emerge output (once for all packages). Current |
| 21 |
distribution (of often crucial information) across heaps of messages |
| 22 |
does not make much sense. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Actually I do not understand why some applications can't live without |
| 25 |
interactive setup. Can anybody explain it better? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Andrzej |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives