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 11DAA138635 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:07:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B6BA21C023; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:07:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qe0-f54.google.com (mail-qe0-f54.google.com [209.85.128.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2A0621C00E for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:07:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qe0-f54.google.com with SMTP id 1so716614qeb.13 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:07:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=edMRZZ6FYQPTo1XB6i8lmxOuMHuInLYELUEWD/kdgEg=; b=PMaFgO8XhnoaLFbzKIw8PlIPPdkZJ/wSxHJdo869l2l1Wc4uleOqeGzFpXLmxzVKp6 21BvbnNeOwgW41pOBl0A89DlsKMk/nQZFEpm56sKKGDNTxDcbSTyTQeIqmEqg0mgCeIY e4tUmy6AjALIjFUq5JUuTLuEzIxDTApqxPYwHnb5L7sxHmfMH0hvQ9bC/jvXAAeJR/TH zvnNToPbaSiohFhpTbu8u7uFBPGFRqkPJFtfYOJXgkVxsRZMUtAybUV7KYCdcaOrAoE4 +e+usk+XbM3SHJqv2x45uyxPja2QXxOFQ8cuRnnQ9tBVdpBQDo7uSkcge36gnIo3ScOH c0WQ== 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 X-Received: by 10.224.221.145 with SMTP id ic17mr3605424qab.34.1358982444879; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:07:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.70.164 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:07:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1358979672.2026.43.camel@belkin4> References: <50FFE241.6030107@gentoo.org> <1358976098.2026.42.camel@belkin4> <510059F1.5060902@gentoo.org> <1358979672.2026.43.camel@belkin4> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:07:24 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] news item for udev 197-r3 upgrade (yes, I know, it's late) From: Francesco Riosa To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3074b458e20e2b04d3fcc1bb X-Archives-Salt: 4283475a-d3ce-406b-85bc-a46ff12072d1 X-Archives-Hash: 709d2d6aef50ad17cea2a481c335fbf1 --20cf3074b458e20e2b04d3fcc1bb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2013/1/23 Pacho Ramos > El mi=E9, 23-01-2013 a las 23:45 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribi=F3: > > On 23/01/13 23:21, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > El mi=E9, 23-01-2013 a las 15:14 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribi=F3: > > >> please review this news item, seems we need one after all > > > > > > Why don't you drop "~" from: > > > CONFIG_CHECK=3D"~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 > Pacho, see the message from robbat2 titled "RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS fatal by default" --20cf3074b458e20e2b04d3fcc1bb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
2013/1/23 Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>
El mi=E9, 23-01-2013 a las 23:45 +0200, Samuli Suominen es= cribi=F3:
> On 23/01/13 23:21, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El mi=E9, 23-01-2013 a las 15:14 +0200, Samuli Suominen escribi= =F3:
> >> please review this news item, seems we need one after all
> >
> > Why don't you drop "~" from:
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0CONFIG_CHECK=3D"~DEVTMPFS"
> >
> > to ensure people really changes it in their kernel and prevent br= eakage?
> >
>
> That won't work because the host you run the package isn't nec= essarily
> 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

Pacho, see the mess= age from robbat2 titled "RFC: CONFIG_CHECK_FATAL, making CONFIG_CHECKS= fatal by default"
--20cf3074b458e20e2b04d3fcc1bb--