Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com>
To: 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 20:45:31
Message-Id: 51019D67.7040305@orlitzky.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default by Michael Orlitzky
1 On 01/24/13 15:39, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
2 > On 01/24/13 15:26, vivo75@×××××.com wrote:
3 >>> If you're going to upgrade both anyway, you should be upgrading the
4 >>> kernel first. That way if you lose power or the system crashes, the box
5 >>> can reboot.
6 >>>
7 >> which can be the exact opposite order if instead you have to _disable_ a
8 >> feature in the kernel which would make udev not bootable.
9 >> Don't remember exactly what, but it happened in the past when Greg was
10 >> still maintainer and an obsolete feature was making udev confused.
11 >>
12 >
13 > Suppose, you're on e.g. udev-1, and,
14 >
15 > * udev-2 requires CONFIG_FOO=n
16 > * udev-1 will not boot with CONFIG_FOO=y
17
18 Sorry, that should be an 'n' instead of a 'y'. I started out with 'y'
19 and tried to switch to 'n' to match your example.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default "vivo75@×××××.com" <vivo75@×××××.com>