| 1 |
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 04:56:06PM -0600, R Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> agree here. i would go as far as to maybe print a message to that effect |
| 3 |
> if the build fails while FEATURES="confcache". |
| 4 |
EBUILD_DEATH_HOOKS comes to mind :) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> >Meanwhile, if you're getting failures up the ying yang and it's not |
| 8 |
> >tracked down, I'd state tabling the feature (or tagging massively |
| 9 |
> >hideous warnings regarding it) is required. Iirc, solar ran a |
| 10 |
> >full build with confcache enabled (believe it was 0.3.*), so input |
| 11 |
> >from him would be useful also for comparison. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> damn, i don't want to hold this up, especially if no one else is having |
| 14 |
> troubles. i have a couple days off right now so i'll do some poking around |
| 15 |
> and see what i can come up with. i'll open a bug and assign to you if i |
| 16 |
> figure anything out. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
CC flameeyes on it please. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If ruby isn't restrict'd already, please poke the maintainers to do so |
| 21 |
also :) |
| 22 |
~harring |
Archives