| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 5 |
> FYI: |
| 6 |
> get_running_version is used in one single ebuild, in the entire tree: |
| 7 |
> sys-fs/evms/evms-2.5.5-r10.ebuild |
| 8 |
> And there it's only for a warning. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Ok, I was just suggesting that if there was an intention to implement |
| 11 |
config.gz checks, they should only apply when people ask about the |
| 12 |
running version rather than the build version. Since that doesn't seem |
| 13 |
popular or even necessary, perhaps neither is the need to check config.gz? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> The great majority of CONFIG_CHECK usage in the tree is fatal already. |
| 16 |
> It only actually needs to be fatal only when it's being used to build a |
| 17 |
> module. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Ok, I see what you're suggesting now. When people want to build |
| 20 |
packages, but portage knows their kernel isn't setup to run them |
| 21 |
properly, then it should still build them, but warn them strongly about |
| 22 |
it (as opposed to currently, where it'll just die). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> This leaves us between hand-holding the basic user's kernel configuration |
| 25 |
> (exiting if the kernel config option is not enabled), and changing all |
| 26 |
> non-module instances in the tree to be non-fatal. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ok, so then the question is do we sacrifice correctness for fewer |
| 29 |
(invalid) bugs? Seems like a judgement call. For what it's worth, I'm |
| 30 |
not sure adding extra plumbing to allow smart users to bypass the checks |
| 31 |
is the right middle ground. I'd either leave it as is, or change the |
| 32 |
ebuilds to accurately reflect whether the userspace will build or not. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
>> That all seems fine, but again these just seem like standard guidelines. |
| 35 |
>> Is there not already some "how to write kernel module ebuilds" page |
| 36 |
>> somewhere that documents how you're supposed to use linux-info? |
| 37 |
> If you're building modules, most of the time you're using linux-mod, not just |
| 38 |
> linux-info. There's no document or recommended behavior in the tree for the |
| 39 |
> above actually, and I'd like to introduce one. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Sounds like a good idea, it might also be worth adding to the quizes, if |
| 42 |
existing devs are asking how it should be done? I guess that's a call |
| 43 |
on how common it is to have kernel config requirements on userspace... |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Still, I think I'm on the right page, and even in agreement (which makes |
| 46 |
me happy). 5:) Thanks! |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Mike 5:) |
| 49 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 50 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkqa9gkACgkQu7rWomwgFXq1PwCfTbp8hqsGZjDmsxKE21gKe1Y8 |
| 53 |
lYYAoI2EBCn5KwQdlm6Xd8u0q7KGl7gI |
| 54 |
=Jrsa |
| 55 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives