| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> 9G is what the dev reckons is the maximum. This other figure of 4G - |
| 3 |
> what is that? The amount needed by some arb combination on some arb |
| 4 |
> user's machine? That's not a good enough criteria. It's not really the |
| 5 |
> maximum plus one well-defined other. It's is the maximum plus every |
| 6 |
> other possible combination (there is no defined minimal). If it's an |
| 7 |
> issue for you, the solution is simple - keep a copy of the ebuild in |
| 8 |
> your local overlay and edit the space requirements. Keep it up to date |
| 9 |
> and in-sync with the ebuild in the main tree. It means you get to a |
| 10 |
> little extra work, but is preferable to the dev doing a lot of extra work |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
With a compile that takes as long as LOo does, I'd want the dev to be on |
| 13 |
the side of caution rather than underestimating it. If the max is 9Gbs, |
| 14 |
then that is what they should check for. I would much rather the dev do |
| 15 |
that than for me to get to about 90% of the compile done then get the |
| 16 |
little message that it is out of space. I wouldn't be "hal" mad but it |
| 17 |
would sort of tick me off a bit. ;-) Maybe not as bad as /usr on init |
| 18 |
or using a init thingy either. Still a bit upset tho. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Dale |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
:-) :-) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives