| 1 |
On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 09:26 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 14:17 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Quoting Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net>: |
| 4 |
> > > I can only think of a couple of solution: |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > - Remove these unnecessary checks completely: Follow the example of all |
| 7 |
> > > other distributions and do not depend on anything kernel-ish for such |
| 8 |
> > > packages. A recompilation of the kernel with different options can |
| 9 |
> > > easily cause what the checks are trying to avoid anyway. |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > - Make the checks in linux-info non-fatal. I.e., don't die but issue |
| 12 |
> > > warnings instead. That's the *least* that I'd be happy with. |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > What do you people think the proper solution is? |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > In my opinion, the way it is currently done (require those options which are |
| 17 |
> > required for the package to function correctly) is the right way to do it. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > Just because other distributions do it differently doesn't justify us changing. |
| 20 |
> > I've seen and recieved various reports of positive feedback about the way we |
| 21 |
> > handle this. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > The only real argument is that it makes it difficult for people who cross |
| 24 |
> > compile packages for use on other systems only, in which case it might make |
| 25 |
> > sense for the possibility to override the behaviour. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Cross-compiling, embedded systems, and release-building all suffer from |
| 28 |
> this. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I cannot remember .. does release-building (iow catalyst) set ROOT ? If |
| 32 |
so, maybe just make it error if root is not set, as most if not all |
| 33 |
cross compiling of such things (not talking toolchain) is done with ROOT |
| 34 |
set as far I know. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Martin Schlemmer |
Archives