Archives
Archives
| From: | Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o> | ||
| Cc: | "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default | ||
| Date: | Tue, 22 Jan 2013 11:56:14 | ||
| Message-Id: | CAGfcS_=88SEJhewnFiB8M2MUS7S14Lb-DOkxa9M153mseOsudQ@mail.gmail.com | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default by "vivo75@gmail.com" |
||
| 1 | On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 6:11 AM, vivo75@×××××.com <vivo75@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 | > IMHO the number of cases where CONFIG_CHECK is reliable is so small that |
| 3 | > making it fatal will only bloat make.conf and env with a new var for most |
| 4 | > users. |
| 5 | |
| 6 | Tend to agree. I just got an elog out of udisks complaining about |
| 7 | USB_SUSPEND not being set, and I have no idea why I'd need that on a |
| 8 | system that is powered 24x7. Even the kernel docs suggest that it |
| 9 | should be disabled if users aren't sure if they need it. |
| 10 | |
| 11 | Maybe we need some way to distinguish between must-have and |
| 12 | nice-to-have situations? Clearly failure to boot is in a different |
| 13 | category than not-able-to-suspend. |
| 14 | |
| 15 | Rich |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default | "Dustin C. Hatch" <admiralnemo@×××××.com> |
| [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default | Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> |