From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC2AF138658 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:41:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8477B21C0F2; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:40:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 737AC21C0CC for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:40:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.138] (CPE002401f30b73-CM001cea3ddad8.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.224.181.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: axs) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A19933D3DA for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:40:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51015602.20401@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:40:50 -0500 From: Ian Stakenvicius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.11) Gecko/20121208 Thunderbird/10.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] news item for udev 197-r3 upgrade (yes, I know, it's late) References: <50FFE241.6030107@gentoo.org> <1358976098.2026.42.camel@belkin4> <510059F1.5060902@gentoo.org> <1358979672.2026.43.camel@belkin4> In-Reply-To: <1358979672.2026.43.camel@belkin4> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 5d219915-7a86-4db0-9fd7-17556348fb12 X-Archives-Hash: 809b0ff57eb9d064c18d494244d24c51 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 23/01/13 05:21 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El mié, 23-01-2013 a las 23:45 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribió: >> On 23/01/13 23:21, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>> El mié, 23-01-2013 a las 15:14 +0200, Samuli Suominen >>> escribió: >>>> please review this news item, seems we need one after all >>> >>> Why don't you drop "~" from: CONFIG_CHECK="~DEVTMPFS" >>> >>> to ensure people really changes it in their kernel and prevent >>> breakage? >>> >> >> That won't work because the host you run the package isn't >> necessarily same as the one you are building it on The build host >> doesn't need DEVTMPFS >> >> > > And couldn't that be done at install time? I mean, you can build > and package new udev but installation will die if udev is going to > be installed on a system without DEVTMPFS There's too many variables, though -- firstly, /usr/src/linux/.config may not match /proc/config.gz. And even if both are checked there's nothing to say that the next boot is going to use a kernel that matches either one. Realistically, what udev needs is something at runtime to report the error and temporarily bypass the requirement, because this really is a runtime issue instead of something that can be properly controlled or contained at build/install time. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlEBVgIACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBzfQD/ZAE4UHgQJ3zB9wuVkCcPAhXS 21C+7k+mjS2YSg8BgqcA/0iv12JreFnvmybX2H8a/g8BBKm30+Xbt1+bGC+rijYN =qA5Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----