Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Steven J. Long" <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration.
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 05:35:40
Message-Id: 20130704053713.GC13271@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: [gentoo-kernel] Proper distribution integration of kernel *-sources, patches and configuration. by Walter Dnes
1 Walter Dnes wrote:
2 > Tom Wijsman wrote
3 > > With USE=-experimental (which will be the default) they are excluded by
4 > > default, after enabling that the user can exclude patches by setting
5 > > UNIPATCH_EXCLUDE through the package.env mechanism.
6 >
7 > Assume that there are 50 different patches available. I may want/need
8 > features provided by 1 of those patches. I probably do *NOT* want to
9 > enable the other 49 patches. This is similar in concept to enabling one
10 > ~amd64 ebuild, versus globally enabling ~amd64.
11
12 Agreed. But I'd still like to have the option of enabling the setting in
13 the {,n,menu..}config, when it's safe to have available as such.
14
15 > Even if I can come up with the list of the 49 patches to exclude, what
16 > happens when the next developer comes along with patch #51? Does it get
17 > applied next time I build a kernel (ouch)?
18
19 But how will I know about it? Seeing the new flag in USE or the expand in
20 emerge -pv is okay, but not as simple as having it under Gentoo experimental
21 as a new option, just like every other new kernel config option. That's when
22 you review the new kernel in any case; with oldconfig, and subsequent nconfig
23 or w/e.
24
25 When it's reasonable to do so, as the patch is verified not to change anything
26 if its option is unset.
27
28 > IANAD (I Am Not A Developer), but if I did want to apply custom
29 > patches, I think the right approach would be to somewhere manually
30 > modify UNIPATCH_LIST. If that approach won't work, maybe a USE_EXPAND
31 > flag make.conf might be the way to go. E.g. CUSTOM_PATCH="foo bar"
32 > would resolve to USE="custom_patch_foo custom_patch_bar"
33
34 Yeah, but I don't want to keep an eye on all that, and mess around with
35 package.use or expand settings in make.conf. I'd much rather have most
36 in menuconfig by default with USE=experimental, and then explicitly
37 include things like aufs.
38
39 Just my pov, but I think it fits more with original intent of the idea.
40
41 Regards,
42 steveL
43 --
44 #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)