| 1 |
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:53:06 +0100 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:57:20 -0600 |
| 5 |
> Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:36:53 +0100 |
| 8 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> > > Currently, epunt_cxx always succeeds. This results in some |
| 11 |
> > > of the ebuilds keeping its use even though the C++ checks were removed |
| 12 |
> > > upstream. |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > Therefore, I'm suggesting to add a simple check to the function -- if |
| 15 |
> > > none of the patching attempts succeed, die requesting the user to remove |
| 16 |
> > > the invocation. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > eqawarn? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Yes, eqawarn if we don't want users to be hurt :P. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I think it would be overkill to make what is essentially a no-op into a fatal |
| 23 |
error. A warning would be appropriate. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gcc-porting |
| 28 |
toolchain, wxwidgets learn a language baby, it's that kind of place |
| 29 |
@ gentoo.org where low card is hunger and high card is taste |
Archives