1 |
On Wednesday 22 of October 2008 11:54:39 Alistair Bush wrote: |
2 |
> Dawid Węgliński wrote: |
3 |
> > Hello fellow developers and users. |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > I'd like to know your opinion of bug #243050 [1] |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > 01:18:59 cla @| If user bothers to patch his kernel, he can |
8 |
> > bother to add proper package.keyword line, imo. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> ++ |
11 |
> |
12 |
> > 01:21:52 hparker @| Or maybe get the patches added to |
13 |
> > gentoo-sources |
14 |
> |
15 |
> or ++ |
16 |
> |
17 |
> maybe we can get the pm's to implement this as EAPI="999,999,999.99" |
18 |
> I suggest a syntax of "virtual/kernel:::::::user_patched" |
19 |
> |
20 |
|
21 |
As far as i understand what Donnie said yesterday on irc, these patches are |
22 |
going to be merged in 2.6.28, so problem in this case should be fixed in near |
23 |
future. But this doesn't resolv global issue that happens for packages |
24 |
requiring users input (such as patching kernel themself). |
25 |
|
26 |
Most devs i was talking with would mark the bug as INVALID until kernel (here |
27 |
{gentoo,vamilla}-sources support package in question. |
28 |
|
29 |
> On a more serious note, How can we confirm a package is stable when we |
30 |
> can't confirm the kernel it depends on is? |
31 |
|
32 |
We can't, also security team wouldn't support it: |
33 |
|
34 |
"Adding a new kernel source into the tree is not recommended by the Gentoo |
35 |
Security Team. Unless it is a kernel source you think could be used by a wide |
36 |
number of users, please end your consideration here and simply use an |
37 |
overlay. If you do believe that it is, you must be willing to become the |
38 |
security maintainer." |
39 |
|
40 |
> |
41 |
> I would have no problem with gentoo-sources also including a use flag(s) |
42 |
> ( or not ) and having it add patches to support software we have within |
43 |
> the tree. I have no say in that tho. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> Alistair |