Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
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 18:18:53
Message-Id: 51017B0A.4060608@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default by Rich Freeman
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA256
3
4 On 24/01/13 01:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
5 > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
6 > wrote:
7 >> That said, presumably udisks would choose not to make its check
8 >> fatal, altho changing the default to fatal could complicate
9 >> things for existing ebuilds until they're fixed.
10 >
11 > That was basically my whole point - it can't be one-size-fits-all.
12 > Honestly, based on some of the other feedback I'm not convinced it
13 > should ever be fatal. Perhaps it should be more or less noisy.
14 >
15 > Keep in mind that a typical user may be running parallel builds
16 > and such - so a delay doesn't really make much sense there either.
17 > There should also be some way to kill any interactivity in advance
18 > - if I'm running a bootstrap script of some kind and I'm
19 > installing/updating udev before I even compile a kernel that
20 > shouldn't cause the whole process to die.
21 >
22
23 a fatal die in pkg_pretend could be circumvented by an environment
24 variable such as ${PN}_I_KNOW_WHAT_IM_DOING being set. Just a thought.
25
26
27
28 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
29 Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
30
31 iF4EAREIAAYFAlEBewoACgkQ2ugaI38ACPA5fQEAucffX2nqeFvlE+WTdY9xbWTY
32 zDiKIRofsFlsgSOscOMA/3iqGLolGVDlYR3YyLfform8udhz1deAYSyA4tabq4zH
33 =ky38
34 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies