| 1 |
On Mon, 12 May 2014 12:44:38 -0400 |
| 2 |
Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 4 |
> <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Mon, 12 May 2014 17:46:57 +0200 |
| 6 |
> > Alexander Berntsen <bernalex@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> On 12/05/14 17:23, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 8 |
> >> > A flag being present or not in FEATURES does not mean anything, |
| 9 |
> >> > and if you're assuming that it does then you have a bug. |
| 10 |
> >> Please try to stay on topic, and don't obfuscate your posts |
| 11 |
> >> needlessly. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > This is on-topic, and it tells you exactly what you need to know to |
| 14 |
> > understand why your objection is irrelevant. But if you would like |
| 15 |
> > it made simpler, but less precise: if you are looking at FEATURES |
| 16 |
> > for anything that is not purely Portage internals, you are doing |
| 17 |
> > something wrong. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> The idea would be to check for the necessary kernel features from |
| 20 |
> portage backend code, not from ebuild code. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Why, though? FEATURES doesn't give meaningful information to anything |
| 23 |
other than Portage internals, so it doesn't matter. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives