Re: [gentoo-dev] linux-info.eclass: lacking sources, config checks and module building

[Mike Auty <ikelos@gentoo.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> FYI:
> get_running_version is used in one single ebuild, in the entire tree:
> sys-fs/evms/evms-2.5.5-r10.ebuild
> And there it's only for a warning.

Ok, I was just suggesting that if there was an intention to implement
config.gz checks, they should only apply when people ask about the
running version rather than the build version.  Since that doesn't seem
popular or even necessary, perhaps neither is the need to check config.gz?

> The great majority of CONFIG_CHECK usage in the tree is fatal already.
> It only actually needs to be fatal only when it's being used to build a
> module.

Ok, I see what you're suggesting now.  When people want to build
packages, but portage knows their kernel isn't setup to run them
properly, then it should still build them, but warn them strongly about
it (as opposed to currently, where it'll just die).

> This leaves us between hand-holding the basic user's kernel configuration
> (exiting if the kernel config option is not enabled), and changing all
> non-module instances in the tree to be non-fatal.

Ok, so then the question is do we sacrifice correctness for fewer
(invalid) bugs?  Seems like a judgement call.  For what it's worth, I'm
not sure adding extra plumbing to allow smart users to bypass the checks
is the right middle ground.  I'd either leave it as is, or change the
ebuilds to accurately reflect whether the userspace will build or not.

>> That all seems fine, but again these just seem like standard guidelines.
>>  Is there not already some "how to write kernel module ebuilds" page
>> somewhere that documents how you're supposed to use linux-info?
> If you're building modules, most of the time you're using linux-mod, not just
> linux-info. There's no document or recommended behavior in the tree for the
> above actually, and I'd like to introduce one.

Sounds like a good idea, it might also be worth adding to the quizes, if
existing devs are asking how it should be done?  I guess that's a call
on how common it is to have kernel config requirements on userspace...

Still, I think I'm on the right page, and even in agreement (which makes
me happy).  5:)  Thanks!

Mike  5:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkqa9gkACgkQu7rWomwgFXq1PwCfTbp8hqsGZjDmsxKE21gKe1Y8
lYYAoI2EBCn5KwQdlm6Xd8u0q7KGl7gI
=Jrsa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----