| 1 |
On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 14:11:32 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > Your use of -- to supply extra arguments to emerge. It means you may |
| 4 |
> > be using unsupported options so if it breaks, the pieces are all |
| 5 |
> > yours. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Yes, I can read the words, Neil ;-) I just want to know whether it's |
| 8 |
> safe to ignore the warning even when issued with such vigour. As I |
| 9 |
> said, I can't see anything dangerous in the arguments I pass in the |
| 10 |
> alias. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Nor can I. The warning is really saying you are using an |
| 13 |
unsupported combination of options. Rather than saying they are unsafe, |
| 14 |
it is saying they are not certain to be safe. The decision is yours, but |
| 15 |
my reaction to the warning is along the like of "OK, whatever" and then I |
| 16 |
do it anyway. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Neil |
| 19 |
living life on the edge! |
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
When you choke a smurf, what color does it turn? |
Archives