Re: [gentoo-dev] USE Linux 2.6.x

["C. Brewer" <cbrewer@stealthaccess.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2763 bytes --]

On Tuesday 21 October 2003 3:25, Spider wrote:
> begin  quote

> Then fix pcmcia-cs and alsa-driver before you suggest anything. as it
> is, my machine won't boot properly without pcmcia-cs -and- alsa, as they
> IRQ conflict unless loaded in a certain order.

Excuse me? "I" should fix these?

> They are both dependant on the target module, and theres no way in a
> gnomes purple hell you are going to get me into a state where I can
> reboot first, and then rebuild the modules, only to reboot again so I
> have a working boot session.  uh-oh- NO.

Under those conditions likely not.....

> And no, you won't get me to emerge it with SLOT="purple-gnomes-2.4.44"
> either, Just because I sat down and got my own kerneltree installed into
> usr/src/testkernelwithextraJFSpatches , and then loose my existing ,
> working, tried kernelset.

Okay, this part comes across barely intelligible, but if it helps substitute 
TARGET= for SLOT=.. of course I did point out it was a suggestion, not a 
solution, and you have offered up what counterproposal?

> When you get this set to -automagically- detect the target kernel.,
> build modules and fix. then ok.

Again with the when "i" thing...

> if you want it to depend on the running kernel, erm...  No. theres a few
> things already that do so, and that is -BROKEN- behaviour.  I don't even
> -HAVE- the sources for my running kernel at most times. What?  No I
> don't need them. I shouldn't need to have my sources for the hard
> compiled and working copy of 2.4.18-saviour with extra everything that I
> know boots all my machines and I have in a .tar stored away for working
> order.

"I" don't want to have it depend on a running kernel, or on a symlink, All I 
was saying is that in most cases it'd probably be just easier to boot into a 
running kernel and build your non-essential mod package, I realize that this 
is not always the case.
 
> Yes, this thread invoked a lot of hot emotions from my side.
>
>
> // Spider

Well, guess what? I was pretty pissed off _before_  I saw your mail, so you 
can imagine where I'm at now, especially since I've asked a couple of times 
why this symlink is necessary, when it's highly discouraged. If a package 
needs this symlink, mask it, get it fixed upstream or dont carry it at all 
ffs. I point out the bad ones when I see them, and I atleast proffered a 
suggestion. I was civil when this was a discussion, but turning this into a 
pissing match was sheer stupidity. But I guess I'm just the stupid end user 
with no say, I guess? Atleast when I'm being a prick, I only represent me. 

-- 
Chuck Brewer
Registered Linux User #284015
Get my gpg public key at pgp.mit.edu!! Encrypted e-mail preferred.



[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]