| 1 |
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:49:21 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:40:11 +0000 David Morgan <david.morgan@×××××.com> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | Since when is a machine with 256MB "low on ram"? (it's also a P4, |
| 5 |
> | though only 1.8GHz, but that's not really relevant) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> That's very relevant. If you were on a sparc32 box I could understand |
| 8 |
> 256MBytes RAM, but on a GHz+ machine??? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I don't know about now, but not so long ago 2GHz+ PCs with only 256MB |
| 12 |
of RAM were being sold |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> | > Naah, I'd go for the warning with maybe an ebeep. If you really must |
| 15 |
> | > have a force thingie, it shouldn't be a USE flag, since USE flags |
| 16 |
> | > are for things which affect the resultant program |
| 17 |
> | |
| 18 |
> | The idea isn't to have a USE flag, but to do something like in the |
| 19 |
> | xorg-x11-6.8.0-r{2,4} ebuilds: |
| 20 |
> <snip> |
| 21 |
> | Except that it only fails if they don't have enough memory and if the |
| 22 |
> | variable isn't set. It's a nasty solution, but it can potentially stop |
| 23 |
> | bug reports about X randomly being killed. (After all, there's a high |
| 24 |
> | chance that someone won't notice any other sort of warning, beep or |
| 25 |
> | no) |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> I'm reaaallllllly not a fan of hacks like that. If the user has kill on |
| 28 |
> OOM turned on then they should expect to have processes zapped if they |
| 29 |
> run out of memory. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Isn't it turned on by default? (in fact I didn't realise that things |
| 33 |
could happen any other way...) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives