Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-info.eclass: lacking sources, config checks and module building

[Mike Auty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> If you feel like reviewing ~140 packages and filing bugs for them, I
> won't stop you. But I'm just going to go and fix the ones that seem
> simple enough to me, and only file bugs for the complex ones.

Ok, I'll do what I can tomorrow.  I'm off to bed now...  5:)

> Err, I'm not following what you claim is the problem here?
>
> cat/foo-mod:
> inherit linux-mod
> CONFIG_CHECK="!option"
>
> ...
>
> The user sets USE=-modules because they have built cat/foo-mod on their
> own, into the kernel. foo-mod installs nothing

Just checking that it will actually install nothing, rather than failing
out with an error because the kernel has "option" set.  I'm just
re-iterating that CONFIG_CHECK should only occur if USE="modules".  If
USE="-modules", then the CONFIG_CHECK options should probably be ignored
shouldn't they?

> It needs to be ALWAYS available. The ipset bug I linked earlier in the
> thread was an example of that. The userspace is useless without the
> kernel code, but there is nothing to stop the user patching it into
> their kernel and not having it as a module at all (as is the case on a
> couple of my work boxes, which is why the bug got filed).

Ok, fair enough.  However, in that instance, ipset is a userspace
dependency, I was talking about kernel modules that have no userspace
dependencies.  I suppose there could be a case where someone is trying
to custom build a userspace tool that isn't in portage yet, but I still
think it might cause confusion to allow USE="modules" on kernel modules
(without any dependencies) that then install nothing.  I'm wondering
which will cause more bugs to be filed?

Mike  5:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkqbHEEACgkQu7rWomwgFXrEpQCeIMWofCtvwHKJoZsb3/qUyLcP
tTUAoIb3Sr645x6NY82LXK6i/3g75NF5
=uaOB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----