Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel-mod.eclass addition + clean up

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

Hi,

On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 23:54, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Sounds good, but you should check it with the cloop maintainer first. Also ask
> about the zlib stuff, according to grep, cloop is the only ebuild that uses
> it. I think we should move the zlib stuff into the cloop ebuild and take it
> out of the eclass.

Yes, I will of course contact the ebuild maintainer before doing massive
changes.

Removing the kernel-{info,mod}_checkzlibinflate_configured() function
from kernel-{info,mod} sounds good to me. Having such a specialized
option in an eclass doesn't really make sense (or does it? Please speak
up).

> Perhaps some comments around the _subdir_to_m function would be appropriate -
> but other than that, I don't think theres much we can do.

Ok - I'll add a descriptive comment before the various functions.

> Ok, how would you feel about removing the ${KV} stuff from portage.py and just
> making the ebuilds that currently use it convert to using kernel-info? Or, we
> could easily extend portage to set KV_MAJOR etc. But what I'm getting at is
> that we should only do this in one place - and where should it be? My view is
> that it should be done in the eclass.

Hmmm... tough question. Currently 729 ebuilds in the portage tree uses
${KV} and only 57 use ${KV_PATCH}. It seems that many ebuilds rely on
knowing the kernel version but not many rely on knowing the kernel
version in details.

Does portage use ${KV} internally?

./Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@g.o>
Gentoo Linux