on 14/03/2011 02:45 Doug Barton said the following:
> BTW, the reason I'm not amenable to your suggestion in 2 is that only a few
> developer-types actually care about this, and that doesn't justify the code
> complexity. Just be thankful I didn't go with my first instinct, which was to
> 'rm
> -r
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:08:26AM -0400, J. Hellenthal wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 20:45, dougb@ wrote:
> > On 3/13/2011 5:35 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> >> Hi Doug,
> >>
> >> I'd like to raise a couple of nits with portmaster (primarily a wish
> >> for more configurability):
> >>
> >> 1) In v
Am 14.03.2011 01:45, schrieb Doug Barton:
On 3/13/2011 5:35 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Hi Doug,
I'd like to raise a couple of nits with portmaster (primarily a wish
for more configurability):
1) In v3.0, you added code to nice(1) all make(1) invocations. In some
cases, the default niceness does n
On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 20:45, dougb@ wrote:
On 3/13/2011 5:35 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Hi Doug,
I'd like to raise a couple of nits with portmaster (primarily a wish
for more configurability):
1) In v3.0, you added code to nice(1) all make(1) invocations. In some
cases, the default niceness does
On 3/13/2011 5:35 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Hi Doug,
I'd like to raise a couple of nits with portmaster (primarily a wish
for more configurability):
1) In v3.0, you added code to nice(1) all make(1) invocations. In some
cases, the default niceness does not suit me (in particular, I'd often
prefe
