Re: [gentoo-dev] Pending Removal of $KV

[Georgi Georgiev]

maillog: 19/06/2006-16:34:55(-0700): Ryan Tandy types
> Arek (James Potts) wrote:
> >If they don't actually build against the kernel,
> >couldn't/shouldn't they look at either kernel-headers or the output of
> >`uname -r`?
>
> Kernel headers being the virtual/linux-headers dependency that Georgi
> mentioned.  `uname -r` works, but is annoying because you can't build
> for a kernel other than the one you're running.

Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, I did not mention
any headers (refer to my original post below).

maillog: 20/06/2006-00:34:42(+0900): çÅÏÒÇÉ çÅÏÒÇÉÅ× types
> maillog: 19/06/2006-11:13:33(+0000): Alec Warner types
> > Portage currently exports $KV as the current kernel version.  We detect
> > this by attempting to mess around with the things in /usr/src/linux
> > (.config, make files, etc...)
> >
> > This is duplicating the superb efforts of the kernel team and of
> > linux-info eclass.  As such I would like to deprecate $KV in favor of
> > using linux-info eclass.  I don't see the need for portage to export $KV
> > into the environment for all packages.
> >
> > There are a few packages left that use this.  There will be a tracker
> > bug shortly.  Mostly this mail is just a heads up ;)
>
> But any kind of checks against something in $KERNEL_DIR are just wrong,
> wrong, wrong. The only exception being when the ebuild is building
> something *against* those sources (kernel modules, and that's it).
>
> It's annoying to have virtual/linux-sources pulled as a dep of gnupg,
> iptables or any other package that can do fine without them.

-- 
(    Georgi Georgiev   (  Like all young men, you greatly exaggerate (
 )    chutz@×××.net     ) the difference between one young woman and  )
(  http://www.gg3.net/ (  another. -- George Bernard Shaw, "Major    (
 ) -------------------  ) Barbara"                                    )
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list