| 1 |
On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 09:17, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/04/04 Drake Wyrm wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > What? No opinions, or everybody thinks I'm too much of an idiot to |
| 5 |
> > bother answering? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I think Daniel fixed that already by using the 'don't unmerge' feature |
| 8 |
> of CONFIG_PROTECT for /lib/modules. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
It is fixed in the version of portage that is in CVS, but the fix still |
| 11 |
hasn't made it to the versions of portage that are marked stable. In |
| 12 |
the CVS tree it was placed in version 1.345 of portage.py. The version |
| 13 |
that is being distributed is currently 1.341 (See my comments at the end |
| 14 |
of bug #1477) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
A manual work around that I have tested is to use env |
| 17 |
CONFIG_PROTECT="/lib/modules" when re-emerging packages such as |
| 18 |
alsa-driver for a new kernel. However, I don't recommend placing it |
| 19 |
into the make.conf as typically you only want to protect the |
| 20 |
/lib/modules directory when doing the above. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I also would like portage-ng to handle kernel modules dependencies in a |
| 23 |
more automated fashion. Someone commented that revdep-rebuild was a |
| 24 |
hack to get around some of the dependency shortcomings in the current |
| 25 |
version of portage. The kernelmod-rebuild script that I recently wrote |
| 26 |
is also such a hack. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I didn't comment on the previous message as I didn't see anything that I |
| 29 |
disagreed with from a requirements perspective. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Regards, |
| 32 |
Paul |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
My Gentoo stuff: http://varnerfamily.org/pvarner/gentoo |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives