| 1 |
On Wednesday 22 of October 2008 11:54:39 Alistair Bush wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dawid Węgliński wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Hello fellow developers and users. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I'd like to know your opinion of bug #243050 [1] |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > 01:18:59 cla @| If user bothers to patch his kernel, he can |
| 8 |
> > bother to add proper package.keyword line, imo. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> ++ |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > 01:21:52 hparker @| Or maybe get the patches added to |
| 13 |
> > gentoo-sources |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> or ++ |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> maybe we can get the pm's to implement this as EAPI="999,999,999.99" |
| 18 |
> I suggest a syntax of "virtual/kernel:::::::user_patched" |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
As far as i understand what Donnie said yesterday on irc, these patches are |
| 22 |
going to be merged in 2.6.28, so problem in this case should be fixed in near |
| 23 |
future. But this doesn't resolv global issue that happens for packages |
| 24 |
requiring users input (such as patching kernel themself). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Most devs i was talking with would mark the bug as INVALID until kernel (here |
| 27 |
{gentoo,vamilla}-sources support package in question. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> On a more serious note, How can we confirm a package is stable when we |
| 30 |
> can't confirm the kernel it depends on is? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
We can't, also security team wouldn't support it: |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
"Adding a new kernel source into the tree is not recommended by the Gentoo |
| 35 |
Security Team. Unless it is a kernel source you think could be used by a wide |
| 36 |
number of users, please end your consideration here and simply use an |
| 37 |
overlay. If you do believe that it is, you must be willing to become the |
| 38 |
security maintainer." |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> I would have no problem with gentoo-sources also including a use flag(s) |
| 42 |
> ( or not ) and having it add patches to support software we have within |
| 43 |
> the tree. I have no say in that tho. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> Alistair |
Archives