Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Paul Varner <gentoo-portage-dev@××××××××××××.org>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] kernel drivers vs. portage
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:30:51
Message-Id: 1073237445.22251.13.camel@garath.local.domain
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] kernel drivers vs. portage by Marius Mauch
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.
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 The version
13 that is being distributed is currently 1.341 (See my comments at the end
14 of bug #1477)
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.
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.
28 I didn't comment on the previous message as I didn't see anything that I
29 disagreed with from a requirements perspective.
31 Regards,
32 Paul
33 --
34 My Gentoo stuff:
36 --
37 gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] kernel drivers vs. portage Brian <dol-sen@×××××.net>