Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Linux 2.6.x

[Spider]

begin  quote
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:44:23 -0700
"C. Brewer" <cbrewer@×××××××××××××.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday 21 October 2003 3:25, Spider wrote:
> > begin  quote
>
> > Then fix pcmcia-cs and alsa-driver before you suggest anything. as
> > it is, my machine won't boot properly without pcmcia-cs -and- alsa,
> > as they IRQ conflict unless loaded in a certain order.
 
> Excuse me? "I" should fix these?



Because, they are two of the problematic builds that are affected by
your suggested way of fixing, or breaking, things.   This was not
personally directed at you, but taken out as examples of packages that
can't just depend on "What am I running right now" Because of how they
work.



 
> > And no, you won't get me to emerge it with
> > SLOT="purple-gnomes-2.4.44" either, Just because I sat down and got
> > my own kerneltree installed into
> > usr/src/testkernelwithextraJFSpatches , and then loose my existing ,
> > working, tried kernelset.
>
> Okay, this part comes across barely intelligible, but if it helps
> substitute   TARGET= for SLOT=.. of course I did point out it was a
> suggestion, not a  solution, and you have offered up what
> counterproposal?

Curently my counterproposal is to actually have the usr/src/linux
symlink directed at the target kernel, and if that link isn't found,
assume that we want the running kernel instead, and repoint it at
lib/modules/`uname -r`/build

Just because usr/src/linux is a symlink in our case, why is that worse
than following and relying on the /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build
  symlink?  The name?  if that's the case, we could well make the
symlink named "Target" and instead just confuse people more.





> > When you get this set to -automagically- detect the target kernel.,
> > build modules and fix. then ok.
>
> Again with the when "i" thing...

Yes, I'm of the old school ,  I -assume- that people who suggest a way
of doing things, also have tried it themselves, or are capable of
implementing it.  When you don't have that situation, you get "Designed
by Commite"  solutions that may sound good, but are in fact unworkable.




> But I guess I'm just the stupid end user  with no say, I guess?
> Atleast when I'm being a prick, I only represent me.

The personal form "i" which I used througout the whole email suggests
that in this case it is my personal opinion.  To assume that it is that 
of a team, whom I've been sent forth to represent, is plain silly. 


And, in my not overly humble opinion, You have just as much to say as
anyone else. Its not about your email address.



//Spider


-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end