| 1 |
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 2 |
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Mon, 12 May 2014 17:46:57 +0200 |
| 4 |
> Alexander Berntsen <bernalex@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> On 12/05/14 17:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > A flag being present or not in FEATURES does not mean anything, and |
| 7 |
>> > if you're assuming that it does then you have a bug. |
| 8 |
>> Please try to stay on topic, and don't obfuscate your posts |
| 9 |
>> needlessly. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> This is on-topic, and it tells you exactly what you need to know to |
| 12 |
> understand why your objection is irrelevant. But if you would like it |
| 13 |
> made simpler, but less precise: if you are looking at FEATURES for |
| 14 |
> anything that is not purely Portage internals, you are doing something |
| 15 |
> wrong. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The idea would be to check for the necessary kernel features from |
| 19 |
portage backend code, not from ebuild code. |
Archives