Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:05:40
Message-Id: CAGfcS_=HFVMUBsWnJ-Zua9HxTAXqJ1=C8d3qWL6k=z-pAfhYmw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default by Ian Stakenvicius
1 On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote:
2 > How about, you know what you're doing and are going to build a new
3 > kernel as soon as the emerge finishes (since the emerge is also
4 > bringing in a new gentoo-sources)??
5
6 Or my earlier example - USB_SUSPEND and such. If there end up being
7 lots of config checks that are fatal then users will inevitably end up
8 overriding them, and then they'll get burned when the check really
9 matters.
10
11 I think the better option in any case is to use a news item when
12 things change so that users can actually plan for the upcoming changes
13 and not find out in the middle of a build. News can be targeted at
14 those who need to know, it shows up for users 5 years from now if
15 still relevant not if otherwise, and it only shows up once when it
16 matters.
17
18 Rich