| 1 |
2013/1/23 Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> El mié, 23-01-2013 a las 23:45 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió: |
| 4 |
> > On 23/01/13 23:21, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > El mié, 23-01-2013 a las 15:14 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió: |
| 6 |
> > >> please review this news item, seems we need one after all |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > Why don't you drop "~" from: |
| 9 |
> > > CONFIG_CHECK="~DEVTMPFS" |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > to ensure people really changes it in their kernel and prevent |
| 12 |
> breakage? |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > That won't work because the host you run the package isn't necessarily |
| 16 |
> > same as the one you are building it on |
| 17 |
> > The build host doesn't need DEVTMPFS |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> And couldn't that be done at install time? I mean, you can build and |
| 22 |
> package new udev but installation will die if udev is going to be |
| 23 |
> installed on a system without DEVTMPFS |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Pacho, see the message from robbat2 titled "RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making |
| 27 |
CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default" |
Archives