1 |
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Friday 30 Aug 2013 15:44:35 Tanstaafl wrote: |
3 |
>> On 2013-08-30 10:34 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
>> > On 30/08/2013 16:29, Tanstaafl wrote: |
5 |
>> >> Why would there be a problem if someone decided to create a 3rd party |
6 |
>> >> overlay *not* part of the official gentoo portage tree that contained |
7 |
>> >> *only* the zfs stuff, and when this overlay was installed combined with |
8 |
>> >> a zfs keyword for the kernel, portage would then pull in the required |
9 |
>> >> files, and automagically build a kernel with an up to date version of |
10 |
>> >> zfs properly and fully integrated? |
11 |
>> >> |
12 |
>> >> Would this not work, *and* have no problems with licensing? |
13 |
>> > |
14 |
>> > there is no problem with licensing in that case. |
15 |
>> > The ebuild could even go in the portage tree, as Gentoo is not |
16 |
>> > redistributing sources when it publishes an ebuild. |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> Thanks Alan! Just the answer I wanted. |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>> Ok, so... how hard would this be then? What would the chances be that |
21 |
>> this could actually happen? I'll happily go open a bug for it if you |
22 |
>> think the work would be minimal... |
23 |
>> |
24 |
>> It seems to me that I can't be the only one who would like to see this |
25 |
>> happen? |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Nope! I will vote for you. ;-) |
28 |
> |
29 |
> -- |
30 |
> Regards, |
31 |
> Mick |
32 |
|
33 |
Sounds like an awful lot of trouble for a "problem" that's already solved by |
34 |
installing sys-kernel/module-rebuild and running "module-rebuild rebuild" |
35 |
after every kernel update, which is how nvidia, broadcom, and other |
36 |
kernel modules are dealt painlessly with anyways... |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
This email is: [ ] actionable [x] fyi [ ] social |
40 |
Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no |
41 |
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none |